City of York Council
Resolutions and proceedings of the Meeting of the City of York Council held in the Guildhall, York on Thursday, 18 September 2025, starting at 6.30 pm
|
Present: The Deputy Lord Mayor (Councillor Margaret Wells) in the Chair, and the following Councillors: |
|
Acomb Ward |
Bishopthorpe Ward |
|
|
|
|
Lomas Rose
|
Nicholls
|
|
Clifton Ward |
Copmanthorpe Ward |
|
|
|
|
Myers Wells
|
Steward
|
|
Dringhouses & Woodthorpe Ward |
Fishergate Ward |
|
|
|
|
Fenton Mason Widdowson
|
Whitcroft Wilson
|
|
Fulford and Heslington Ward |
Guildhall Ward |
|
|
|
|
Ravilious
|
Clarke Melly Merrett
|
|
Haxby & Wigginton Ward |
Heworth Ward |
|
|
|
|
Cuthbertson Hollyer Watson
|
B Burton Douglas Webb
|
|
Heworth Without Ward |
Holgate Ward |
|
|
|
|
Ayre
|
Kent Steels-Walshaw Taylor
|
|
Hull Road Ward |
Huntington and New Earswick Ward |
|
|
|
|
Baxter Moroney Pavlovic
|
Cullwick Orrell Runciman
|
|
Micklegate Ward |
Osbaldwick and Derwent Ward |
|
|
|
|
J Burton Crawshaw Kilbane
|
Warters
|
|
Rawcliffe and Clifton Without Ward |
Rural West York Ward |
|
|
|
|
Smalley Wann
|
Hook Knight
|
|
Strensall Ward |
Westfield Ward |
|
|
|
|
Fisher Healey
|
Coles Nelson Waller
|
|
Wheldrake Ward |
|
|
|
|
|
Vassie
|
|
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Rowley BEM and Waudby
27. Deputy Lord Mayor's Opening Remarks (6.42pm)
At the beginning of the meeting, the Deputy Lord Mayor paid tribute to the Duchess of Kent and former Councillor Eurig Thomas who had passed away recently. A minute’s silence was observed in their memory.
28. Apologies for Absence (6.42 pm)
Apologies for absence were received from the Lord Mayor, Councillor Rowley BEM and from Councillor Waudby.
29. Declarations of Interest (6.42 pm)
There were no declarations of interest.
30. Minutes (6.43 pm)
Resolved: That the minutes of the Council meeting held on 17
July 2025 be approved and signed by the Chair as a correct
record.
31. Civic Announcements (6.43 pm)
The Deputy Lord Mayor thanked the Civic Party for their work since May to promote the City of York, noting that the Lord Mayor and his party had been extremely busy. She referred to the display of gifts in front of her, that had been given to the Leader by the visiting Women’s Rugby Union World Cup teams.
32. Public Participation (6.45 pm)
Peter Rollings spoke on behalf of Rufforth with Knapton Parish Council, expressing concerns relating to Item 10a, Constitutional Changes, the proposed changes to planning committee. He noted his disappointment that parish councils had not been consulted on the proposals and stated that the minimum size of developments to go to planning committee was not appropriate for smaller, rural communities and that this would lead to a lack of public scrutiny. He asked for the proposals to be rejected or deferred so that consultation with parish councils could be undertaken.
Edward Pearson also spoke in relation to Item 10a, Constitutional Changes, the proposed changes to planning committee, on behalf of Haxby Town Council. He stated that the lack of consultation breached the principles of the Parish Charter and damaged trust. Without consultation, amendments and mitigations to reduce the impact of the changes could not be achieved.
Helen Widdowson spoke on behalf of Spare Handle Co-housing to describe the benefits of co-housing for the city. She stated that the group could assist the council in achieving its goals in relation to housing. She invited Councillors Pavlovic and Smalley to a meeting so that they could learn more about the initiative.
Jake Furby, Co-Chair of Trustees for York LGBTQ+ forum, spoke to the council’s responsibility to ensure the safety of marginalised communities. He explained that safe and accessible spaces in the city were essential to achieve this. He asked that city councillors commit to working with all marginalised groups to ensure that public and civic spaces were safe.
Michael Kearney, a resident, stated that hate crime was rising, and that the flags recently seen in York symbolised hate and intolerance against migrants and other marginalised groups. He called for safe social spaces for the LGBTQ+ community in York.
Bigby Eris Waterson spoke about venues being unwilling to host events for the transgender and non-binary communities, stating that there was a lack of council and police support for ‘queer folk’ and noting that a safe, affordable space was needed.
Stevastian Hook called on the council to recognise the need for queer safe spaces, identifying a lack of venues, especially in the evening, that were fully inclusive. They also stated that there was no queer art scene in the city.
Heather Disley, a resident, spoke to York’s position as a global city, attractive to international visitors and students and recently identified by the Guardian as one of the country’s happiest places to live. She stated that flags eroded this feeling and were divisive symbols. She called for investment in anti-racism training for CYC staff and tourism businesses.
Ryan Wilson, a resident, stated that residents were feeling frightened and threatened. He asked that the council work with, and build positive links with, communities to show that York is welcoming and inclusive.
Isabella Langdon, a PHD engineering student, studying in York, stated that there were many recent examples of hate crime in the city but that this shift in attitude was reversible. She emphasised the importance of making visitors to York feel welcome and safe.
33. Petitions (7.16 pm)
Under Rule B6, the following petitions were presented for consideration by the relevant decision maker, in accordance with the council’s petition arrangements:
a) Councillor Taylor regarding parking restrictions on Manor Drive South. 1
b) Councillor Orrell regarding a signal-controlled pedestrian and cycle crossing on New Lane, Huntington.2
|
Action Required Keep updated the petitions log in
relation to parking restrictions on Manor Drive South for access or
residents only. |
LN |
34. Report of the Leader and Executive (7.19 pm)
A written report was received from Councillor Douglas, Leader of the Council, on the work of the Executive.
Councillor Douglas joined the Deputy Lord Mayor in paying tribute to former Councillor Eurig Thomas and the Duchess of Kent.
Councillor Douglas made a statement on the recent flag activity in the city, acknowledging concerns raised during the public participation item. She stated that since August the values of the city had been challenged, the flags put up on council lampposts were there illegally, there were safety issues and to the money spent to remove them was taxpayers’ money that could not then be spent providing other services. Those individuals putting up flags were driving division, not patriotism. The city would take a zero-tolerance approach and stand united in their values.
Councillors Ayre and Steward gave their support to the Leader in condemning the recent rise in hate crime.
(7:30-7:41 pm, the meeting adjourned.)
35. Questions to the Leader or Executive Members (7.43 pm)
Members were invited to question the Leader or Executive Members. Questions were received from the floor from the following Members, and replied to as indicated:
Questions to Councillor Ravilious, Executive Member for Transport
Funding for dualling the outer ring road
From Councillor Widdowson: It’s become clear that the failure to secure funds for the government to dual the outer ring road as promised is due to a breakdown in communication between the council and the government. Who exactly is to blame for this? The council for not communicating the increased costs, the York Outer MP or the North Yorkshire Mayor for not lobbying the Government effectively or the Government for not providing the funding?
Response: I think we understand the situation differently, there has not been a failure in communication, at the time everyone involved in lobbying for funding did not know the full cost of the project. We have achieved receiving funding for the original estimated cost, and we will now move forward in phases as planned. We have a new head of projects, who has come from National Highways and is well placed to bring the project forward at pace. We are working through those procurement packages, the legal and design and are engaging with the DfT on the funding and transferring that over. FOI requests are further slowing down officers, if there are anything specific around the funding, I am happy to look into those questions for you but I don’t see it from the same angle as you.
Supplementary from Councillor Widdowson: That doesn’t really answer my question, Labour controls all levels of government, the government have announced they are funding the dualling in full, but they are not. It’s obvious there has been a breakdown in communication that no amount of obfuscation or gas lighting hide, who should the residents who are consigned to spending hours in congestion hold accountable?
Response: As I’ve said, there’s been no disastrous breakdown in communication, we asked for funding for dualling the outer ring road, the ask was based on previous estimates, the lobbying was going on simultaneously, we were successful in obtaining the funding because of the lobbying, residents will see those benefits start to emerge as quickly as possible, we are moving forward with the parts that will bring the greatest benefit and unlock housing development opportunities, residents will see those benefits soon.
Supplementary from Councillor Ayre: The government and the York Outer MP have said unequivocally that they have funded the full dualling, and you’re saying there isn’t. How can that not be a failure in communication, when you’re saying completely the opposite?
Response: We asked for funding based on the original cost of the ring road. That’s the funding we’ve got.
20mph speed limit in Bishopthorpe
From Councillor Nicholls: First of all, thank you for consulting widely with Bishopthorpe residents and agreeing the 20mph speed limit. Is there any possibility of bringing in a weight limit on lorries going past schools morning and afternoons?
Response: Thank you, I am really delighted to have brought that forward for Bishopthorpe and to have worked with you on that. We are really serious about road safety and that 20mph limit is the first step in making the roads safer for your community and setting out the process for how we can make roads safer in other communities. We have funding from the Mayor to do that and we are going to come back and look at how we tackle the roads where compliance wasn’t great and how we can have 20mph outside every road where people are living. You raise a good point about the risk presented by HGVs travelling too fast through the village, this is an ongoing problem, due to haulage companies situated outside Bishopthorpe and Copmanthorpe having to go through one village or another, it’s a problem for both villages. I don’t want to do one thing in one village that would have a detrimental effect on the other, we have looked at weight limits, unless there is a structural issue it is hard to put a weight limit on lorries. We could put a weight limit for environmental reasons but those can be overridden by the lorries coming through, so I will talk to officers and continue conversations about how we reduce the risk to those villages. I am not convinced that a weight limit is the solution but I’m happy to work with you to look at what we can do around HGV traffic.
Supplementary from Councillor Merrett: What plans are there to bring the benefits of 20mph speed limits to other parts of the city? In particular, will the Executive Member consider including all of the Groves area in a single 20mph zone?
Response: Every year over 200 collisions in York result in death or serious injury, over half of those involve pedestrians and cyclists. Roughly every year around five people lose their lives on the roads and thirty-five people suffer life changing injuries. Speed is a contributing factor, and it is not reasonable for it to carry on. We know that we need to introduce speed reduction across much of the city, particularly where people live and where people are trying to walk and cycle around the city. I am absolutely in support of bringing it first and foremost to the communities that are asking for it and I’m well aware that the Groves area is wanting to see safer roads where people live. I am working with officers on how we roll out that more widespread 20 mph programme, Bishopthorpe has been really useful in that trial and our understanding of how we implement first of all signs only and then what other measures we include, to be successful as well as signs there often needs to be design changes to the roads plus some Police enforcement and I’m working with Councillor Coles, the Police Fire and Crime Commissioner to look at bringing in some police enforcement to the 20mph zones. Officers will be putting together a strategic programme to roll out 20 mph to other communities in the city. We have a significant number of requests, and I will bring that forward and share with those of you whose communities are asking for it.
Bollards in Copmanthorpe
From Councillor Steward: Residents in Copmanthorpe would like half a dozen bollards opposite the Royal Oak Pub on Main Street, they’ve been quoted a figure of £7,000 for a feasibility study. Would the Executive Member for Transport look into that and get a more realistic figure for these bollards?
Response: I am not aware of the bollard application, I am happy to look at what is being requested. The first thing to do is understand what residents are trying to achieve, part of the reason for the cost will be to assess the road conditions and the best solution for what you are trying to achieve. Often it seems more expensive than it is, the bollards are not going to cost that much but part of the cost is in the design and implementation of the scheme to make sure it is safe, accessible, meets highways requirements, and that it achieves what it is trying to. I don’t know the specifics of this project but I’m happy to request information from officers at my next briefing, I would hope we can do something for a reasonable price and achieve the outcome residents are looking for.
Questions to Councillor Kilbane, the Deputy Leader
UK Film Production Summit
From Councillor Clarke: Can the Deputy Leader explain how the UK Film Production Summit can benefit the city and what it means for jobs and career pathways for the current and future generation?
Response: The UK film production summit which is coming to York in November is being organised by Aesthetica, whose art prize is being launched tonight with support from ourselves, and the Combined Authority. Every single UK film and games company is coming to York, tv and film production companies, games producers, have the opportunity to see what a great place York is and that they could base their business, or their satellite here. We have a thriving cluster of digital media professionals and experts. We can showcase the city and they can come and make their films and games here; it’s already happening, I had another request for filming yesterday and this is the key point for residents, the film, games and tv industries do not have high bars for entry so if you are not particularly academically gifted then it is a route into a decent job and a decent wage. We need to make sure that these opportunities are available for young people and older people looking to switch careers. It’s the first time this summit has happened and all these companies have come together in the UK and we are looking forward to securing these opportunities for York and it’s residents.
Supplementary from Councillor Clarke: On the Aesthetica Short Film Festival, can you explain how that festival develops career opportunities and how it attracts visitors to the city?
Response: It is a global event and a BAFTA nominated film festival, so if you get your film shown in York then it can be nominated for a BAFTA and we have had films that debuted in York go on to win BAFTAs. People from all over the world come to York and say what a great place it is to do business, so it really adds a buzz to the city when it is here and most importantly students from all of our state secondary schools in York, assisted by some of the industry experts, write, produce and direct a film that is debuted at the Aesthetica film festival on the Sunday. I urge you all to come along, it says to those kids, there is a career for you here in York.
Supplementary from Councillor Crawshaw: Is there an opportunity to use events like this to push the narrative that the city is open and inclusive and to start that conversation with parts of the community that feel disconnected or have a skewed view of what the city is really like.
Response: Yes, it’s a great opportunity there really is something for everyone, drama, comedy, there are fringe events that are accessible to everyone, and you get exposed to difference in a different setting that is comfortable and relaxed and you get to experience different cultures, to enable us all to understand each other.
Questions to Councillor Webb, Executive Member for Children, Young People and Education
Free school meals for primary school children in the city
From Councillor Cullwick: In 2023 you were elected on a very clear promise to ensure that a free school lunch was to be provided to every primary school child in the city, can you please give us an estimate of the date by which you will deliver this promise?
Response: Since 2023 we’ve had a lot of change in the country, we’ve now got a national government offering to deliver free school meals, free school breakfasts in all primary schools. We are in a pilot phase for that right now and I’m feeding back on the good and bad points on that. It’s obviously impacted on what we are doing in York as well. I’ve been surprised at how successful the breakfast programme has been, if you look at some of the scrutiny work the universities did for us it showed that the breakfast offer is making a huge difference. I am hopeful the Labour government will bring this forward soon. We have trialled free school lunches at Westfield Primary School, that’s going well and residents and families really support what Labour have done over in Westfield. We’ve been trialling our breakfast offer at Burton Green and this has been expanded to Fishergate. We have a plan to expand further and we now have a steering group for York Hungry Minds and schools register their interest and consider how they can make it work in their schools. Opposition members who were invited to join the steering group have purposefully declined that opportunity, I can forgive the Conservative group who have a lot going on between you but the Liberal Democrats have purposefully declined being involved in that group, I assume that has come from the leadership as individual members appeared pleased to be invited and engaged. We are moving forward and doing our best.
Point of order: From Councillor Steward on a point of accuracy, the conservatives have said that they will attend, and Councillor Nicholls is the representative. Councillor Webb offered his apologies for the misunderstanding.
Supplementary from Councillor Cullwick: Given that your answer clearly shows that your promise will not be kept, would you like to take this opportunity to apologise to families across the city who have been misled and are not receiving free lunches and who are effectively subsidising it elsewhere through their council tax?
Response: I think that’s an absolutely shocking way to talk about supporting children in our most deprived communities. A disgraceful thing to say, we should be supporting our young people in every way we can. It clearly speaks volumes about the Liberal Democrats opposition to helping families in York. We are moving forward as much as we can. I would ask that your question writer try to think of more questions so that you don’t ask the same thing again and again.
From Councillor Ayre: The Liberal Democrats have been quite clear that we are happy to be part of the steering group, we’ve asked a specific question requesting the minutes of the previous meeting of the steering group and the members of the steering group, will he guarantee that all members who take part in that steering group will have access to the previous minutes of that meeting and who was in attendance so they can fulfil their duties as councillors?
Response: Some of the members of the steering group are not councillors, I’ve followed the rules and officer advice regarding the numerous FOIs that you have put in. Turn up to the meeting and find out what’s happening, I am not trying to hide anything, get involved.
Question to Councillor Douglas, Leader of the Council
The Rugby World Cup
From Councillor Baxter: Will the Leader join me in celebrating the fantastic impact that hosting the women’s rugby world cup has had on our city, not only bringing world class athletes but also inspiring young people, boosting our economy and strengthening the city’s reputation for championing women’s sports.
Response: It’s really been a highpoint of the year, the gifts we have in front of us here are a reminder of the welcoming ceremony that I attended along with Councillor Rowley to welcome four international women’s rugby teams to York, that was Canada, Spain, Fiji and New Zealand. It was one of the most uplifting days I have had and the amazing women elite athletes that were on show, not only their competitive nature and their readiness for the tournament but also the way they supported each other along that route where we know that the Black Ferns really are an elite team whereas others, Spain, for example, were at their first international tournament. It was really heartening to see how they supported each other, and they were really happy to be in York; it was a joyous event. I attended a couple of games while they were here, World Rugby and the RFU were really complimentary about the work York has undertaken to put on the campaign and are looking at York as the future for more international sport. It really has driven participation for rugby for women and girls in York, the legacy is really important. I think we can all agree we saw some great rugby, had a great time and it added something very special to the city over the summer.
Questions for Councillor Kent, Executive Member for the Environment and Climate Change
Parks Investment Fund
From Councillor Rose: Acomb is the lowest public green space per capita of any ward in the city and one of the lowest in the county. It’s great therefore to see Viking Road on the list of park investment, it’s the only proper park in our ward, it has brambles growing, sinking wooden stepping stones and the side to the main area falls off every few months and we do a lot of maintenance but it would be good to get proper renovation. How does the algorithm work to put it on the list and how confident can we be in the things on that list?
Response: I am really pleased that the Parks Investment Fund is coming forward as quickly as it is. The scrutiny group that looked at it set out the criteria with the highest weighting to go to areas with the highest deprivation which is a weighting of four, after that is age of play equipment and need of repair, after that it’s key infrastructural repairs for footpaths, fencing and equal weighting has been given to the retention or expansion of our green flag status parks which is a key ambition of ours to increase that across the city and also the availability of third party funding for projects that couldn’t go ahead otherwise or stand alone. On that basis all CYC parks were put through this and Viking Park did make the cut currently, I am hoping that some more schemes will also make the cut. I have very good news for you, our neighbourhood caretaker team were also out there this morning bramble clearing, there will be an opportunity for you to speak to the project manager about what you want done before it’s finalised.
Supplementary from Councillor Coles: Could Councillor Kent say any more about the council caretakers that have been announced this week, it seems a big step forward, they feel like community superheroes doing what members of the community want.
Response: All of you can look forward to hearing from your community ward information officers to arrange walkabouts, that’s going to involve ward councillors, housing officers, housing repair teams and community groups if they wish. This is an add-on service to the core public realm team carrying out their scheduled work, to give that local response. It’s available to every ward across the city unless the Liberal Democrats decide not to avail themselves of it which I really hope they don’t as it’s of great benefit to all residents, we want York to look and feel great and for everyone to feel happy.
36. Scrutiny - Report of the Chair of the Corporate Scrutiny Committee (8.20 pm)
A report was received from Councillor Fenton, Chair of the Corporate Scrutiny Committee, on the work of the Committee.
37. Recommendations of the Audit and Governance Committee (8.22 pm)
Council received a report which presented the recommendations of the Audit and Governance Committee from its meeting held on 3 September 2025, as contained in the reports set out in the Council agenda at items 10a, Constitutional Changes – Updated Contract Procedure Rules and Planning Committee Changes and 10b, Executive / Scrutiny Protocol for City of York Council, and found at minute 23 of September’s meeting. Councillor Jane Burton moved, and Councillor Crawshaw seconded the recommendations.
Councillor Fenton moved an amendment from the floor, relating to Item 10b, paragraph 13.1, explaining that, due to an oversight, the wording at paragraph 13.1 did not reflect the new scrutiny arrangements in relation to task and finish groups. He asked Council to accept the following wording:
“Task groups will be formed to undertake a specific scrutiny review in accordance with the powers conferred by section 21 of the Local Government Act 2001 and will include at least one member of the initiating scrutiny committee. Where possible, task groups will be politically proportionate and aim to have a quoracy membership.”
(20:23, Councillor Warters left the meeting.)
Councillor Merrett formally seconded the proposal and members voted unanimously to accept the amendment as set out above.
Members were invited to debate the Audit and Governance recommendations.
Councillor Hollyer spoke in relation to Item 10a, Planning Committee Changes, he questioned the reasons given for bringing forward the changes, stating that removing committee decisions would lead to a lack of public trust and a loss of democratic accountability. He called on members to reject the proposals and stated that it was pointless to decide delegations only for the government to impose a new set in a few months.
Councillor Vassie also spoke in relation to Item 10a, Planning Committee Changes. Following a point of order made by Councillor Nelson the Monitoring Officer advised members that their comments should not be defamatory and should not attack officers.
Councillor Steward commented on Item 10b, Executive/Scrutiny Protocol for City of York Council, noting that the Conservatives were invited to be on all task and finish groups which was over and above the proportional approach referenced in the protocol. He welcomed this approach and suggested that the protocol was reworded to reflect the politically balanced approach currently taken. In relation to item 10a, he stated that the bar of 40 houses was too high, especially for rural areas, and constitutional changes should be decided cross-party. Councillor Rose raised a point of order and clarified what he had said at Audit and Governance, in relation to the Conservatives attendance at that meeting.
Councillor Pavlovic, Executive Member for Housing, Planning and Safer Communities, spoke on item 10a, stating that the administration was not acting prematurely, and that Parish Councils were consulted on applications and this would continue. The planning process needed to be ready to respond to the increase in applications and to be able to determine the applications within the timeframe set out by the planning authority.
Councillor Fisher also commented on item 10a, he referred to the Parish Charter and raised concerns regarding the threshold of forty houses for those smaller communities. He stated that, wherever possible, Members should make planning decisions and parishes were being treated with contempt.
Following a point of order from Councillor Crawshaw, the Monitoring Officer confirmed with that there was currently no protected right for parish councillors to speak at planning committee meetings, there was no statutory requirement to consult with parish councils on planning applications and that parish councillors could contribute to the planning process either individually or on behalf of the parish council.
Councillor Hook also spoke in relation to item 10a and raised concerns regarding the loss of power due to changes in call-in powers.
Councillor Crawshaw, in relation to item 10a, noted that members on planning committee were expected to act within the legislative framework. He explained the current call-in process for planning applications, noting that members and the public were able to achieve changes if they engaged with the planning application process at an earlier stage.
Councillor Orrell also spoke on item 10a stating that applications that come to committee are regularly improved at the request of residents; residents would feel disillusioned with the democratic process should the changes be put into effect.
Councillor Nelson also commented on item 10a noting that decisions were made against a legal framework, and that call-ins should not be politicised.
Councillor Ayre also spoke on item 10a noting that most decisions made in planning were made in relation to the planning balance. He stated that he was of the belief that Parish Councils were statutory consultees.
Councillor Lomas proposed that the item was moved to a vote, this was seconded by Cllr Webb.
Councillor Jane Burton used her right to reply to restate that the recommendations had been thoroughly debated at Audit and Governance, she also noted that there was an opportunity to revisit the decision after twelve months.
Councillors Fisher, Healey and Hook requested that a named vote be taken.
Councillor Ayre proposed to split the vote to consider items 10a and 10b separately, this was seconded by Councillor Fisher. On being put to a vote, with 20 votes in favour, 20 votes against, and 3 abstentions, the Chair used her casting vote to vote against the motion, the motion therefore fell.
Items 10a and 10b were taken together and votes were cast as follows:
|
For |
Against |
Abstain |
|
A Baxter |
N Ayre |
|
|
B Burton |
C Cullwick |
|
|
J Burton |
I Cuthbertson |
|
|
T Clarke |
S Fenton |
|
|
J Coles |
T Fisher |
|
|
J Crawshaw |
P Healey |
|
|
C Douglas |
A Hollyer |
|
|
J Kent |
A Hook |
|
|
P Kilbane |
E Knight |
|
|
K Lomas |
A Mason |
|
|
R Melly |
M Nichols |
|
|
D Merrett |
K Orrell |
|
|
J Moroney |
C Runciman |
|
|
D Myers |
D Smalley |
|
|
E Nelson |
C Steward |
|
|
M Pavlovic |
C Vassie |
|
|
K Ravilious |
A Waller |
|
|
J Rose |
D Wann |
|
|
L Steels-Walshaw |
R Watson |
|
|
K Taylor |
P Widdowson |
|
|
R Webb |
|
|
|
M Wells |
|
|
|
C Whitcroft |
|
|
|
S Wilson |
|
|
With 24 votes in favour and 20 against, it was:
Resolved: That the following be approved:
i. In relation to Item 10a:
a. the amended Contract procedure Rules, at Annex 1 to the report;
b. the changes to Planning Committees, including any associated amendments to the Scheme of Delegation, at Annex 2 of the report, with effect from 1 October 2025;
c. the revised political balance calculations, at Annex 3 of the report; and
d. Delegate authority to the Director of Governance to make the necessary amendments to Article 13, Appendix 1, and Appendix 8 of the Constitution to reflect the changes contained in Annex 2.
Reason: To update the Constitution in respect of legislative changes to procurement, and to ensure more efficient and effective decision-making in the planning service.
ii. In relation to Item 10b:
The proposed revision to Article 8 of the Council’s Constitution to incorporate the Executive / Scrutiny Protocol for City of York Council.
Reason: To strengthen the scrutiny function and to fulfil the recommendation endorsed by Council in March 2025 in relation to a refreshed Executive / Scrutiny Protocol.
(i) Constitutional Changes - Updated Contract Procedure Rules and Planning Committee Changes (8.22 pm)
This item was considered as part of agenda item 10, Recommendations of the Audit and Governance from the meeting held on 3 September 2025, as minuted at minute 36 above. 1
|
Action Required |
|
|
Note the approval of the recommendation and take any action required. |
BR
|
(ii) Executive / Scrutiny Protocol for City of York Council (8.22 pm)
This item was considered as part of agenda item 10, Recommendations of the Audit and Governance from the meeting held on 3 September 2025, as minuted at minute 36 above. 2
(9:00 - 9:13 pm, the meeting adjourned)
|
Action Required |
|
|
Note the approval of the recommendation and take any action required. |
JP
|
38. Publication of Member's Addresses (9.15 pm)
The Chair advised members that the guillotine would fall at 9:40 pm, and the meeting would close at 9:50pm.
Council received a report which presented the Council’s proposed approach to the publication of Members home addresses on their Register of Interests. Councillor Douglas moved, and Councillor Kilbane seconded, the following recommendation contained in the report:
“To agree that all Members’ home addresses will be treated as sensitive and only the electoral division in which they live will be published unless a member opts to have their home address published, in accordance with option (c), an ‘opt-out’ approach.”
During the debate, in response to questions from Members, the Monitoring Officer advised that any address connected with a member would be redacted. Any interest in a property should be declared on the register of interests, this would then be redacted prior to publication.
On being put to the vote, the recommendation was declared CARRIED and it was
Resolved: That the above recommendation be approved.1
Reason: In the interests of enhancing the safety and security of Members, whilst still allowing individual member choice.
|
Action Required Note the approval of the recommendation and take any action required. |
GC |
39. Appointments and Changes to Membership (9.25 pm)
Councillor Ayre called for a separate vote on the CYC-nominated Director appointment to Explore York Libraries and Archives Mutual Limited.
Councillor Smalley paid tribute to the outgoing Director and asked that the leader convey member’s thanks for his service.
Following debate, the Monitoring Officer advised that the appointments for the Health and Wellbeing Board and York Museums Trust were group nominations and as such could not be voted upon.
The appointment to Explore York Libraries and Archives Mutual Limited was put to a vote, this was declared CARRIED and it was
Resolved:
i. That Owen Trotter be appointed as CYC-nominated Director.1
ii. That the first and third appointments, set out in the agenda papers at page 179, be noted.2
|
Action Required To
note the approval of the appointments to York Explore, make the
changes on the system and inform organisations as required. |
JP |
40. Motions on Notice (9.36 pm)
i. Planning Process Improvements
Moved by Councillor Steward and seconded by Councillor Nicholls:
“Council believes with York now having a Local Plan and set to deliver much needed homes it is more important than ever that the planning system works with residents for residents, and it does not believe this is how many residents currently feel it to be the case.
Council notes there are set to be changes nationally in planning process and elsewhere on the agenda likely to be changes to committee working in York.
Council calls for a cross-party group to be set up to look at improvements to the planning and specifically the S106 process including the following:
· A review of outstanding S106 money and the plans to spend it (and absolutely ensure any risk of it needing to return it to developers is minimised)
· Improving the process of ensuring all consultees respond to S106 enquiries (noting for example a notable number of large applications which have received no NHS response)
· Creating a system for ward members to be consulted on S106 agreements
·
Ensuring the monitoring of S106
agreements is rigorous and breaches are swiftly acted
upon.”
Councillor Ben Burton then moved, and Councillor Pavlovic seconded, an amendment to the above motion, as follows:
“Under ‘Council calls for’ to the first bullet point add ‘share details and discuss the existing and delete the word A.
To the third bullet point, after ‘ward members to’ add ‘identify their ward priorities in the different categories of s106 contributions (in which there is discretion i.e. not education, early years places etc) to inform officers when drafting’, delete ‘be consulted upon’.
Add a fifth bullet point:
· ‘Ensuring that the monies received are spent as promptly as possible to deliver the mitigations / benefits they are for, and that there is a clear monitoring system for this.’
During the above debate, the Chair advised that the guillotine had fallen. Councillor Ayre moved, under section 9.3, that members take the extra 30 mins and remove the guillotine, the Chair advised that the deadline had passed to do this. Councillor Ayre then moved to suspend the Standing Order that referred to the time period within which the guillotine could be suspended, this was seconded by Cllr Healey.
Point of order from Councillor Nelson: The Chair had earlier given both the time the guillotine would fall and the time the meeting would close.
Members voted against the motion to suspend the standing order.
Returning to the motion on notice, on being put to the vote, the amendment was declared CARRIED and it was
Resolved:That the above motion as amended be approved.1
The two remaining motions were dealt with under Standing Orders and were deemed to have been moved and seconded.
ii. Fair Funding for York submitted by Councillor Healey
“Council notes that:
· The Government’s Fair Funding 2.0 consultation proposed major changes to the way local government funding is distributed, including a proposal to fully include the impact of mandatory discounts and exemptions in the measure of taxbase, which has not been updated since 2013/14
· In the Council’s official response, it has warned that the new funding model could increase York’s existing three-year budget gap by an additional £15 million.
· The Council also raised concerns that the new model risks locking the city into a position at the bottom of the funding league table
· When asked at Full Council on 17 July about representations made on York’s behalf, the Leader said “It is really hard to see exactly where we can lobby to have a positive impact for the benefit of York.”
Council believes that:
· The Government’s proposed changes, if implemented unamended, would leave York taxpayers paying more while getting less in return
· Local government finance must be based on fairness and need, not a system which unfairly punishes York
· It would have been desirable for the council’s response to the Fair Funding consultation to have been informed by input from Scrutiny
· Students deserve access to high-quality public services and should continue to benefit from the Class N Council Tax exemption. Local authorities with large student populations, however, should not have to disproportionately bear the cost of this exemption and any new or revised funding arrangements arising from the Fair Funding consultation must reflect this
· York’s funding settlement from Government must include granular detail demonstrating how the value of the Class N exemption has been accounted for
· Although the Council has no unilateral power to impose one, a Council Tax increase above the current 4.99% ceiling would hit residents hard at a time when many are already struggling with the cost-of-living crisis
· The council administration must do more to lobby Government on York’s behalf, in light of the devastating assessment of the Council’s Finance Officer
· All political parties should unite in defending York from these flawed and damaging proposals
Council resolves to Call on the Council Leader to:
· make a formal representation to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government and the Chancellor of the Exchequer demanding that York is not left with a £15m shortfall under the new model
· rule out seeking powers to impose a Council Tax rise above the current 4.99% ceiling in any event
· engage with other local authorities with large student populations to make the case for funding allocations to fully take into account the impact of the Class N exemption
·
re-engage with the F20 group of the
least well-funded Councils to lobby the Government to introduce a
truly fair funding system.
The below amendment to the above motion, submitted by Councillor Whitcroft, was deemed moved and seconded:
Under ‘Council notes’, to the fourth bullet point, after ‘benefit of York’, add ‘but rest assured that work is taking place.’
Under ‘Council believes’, to the first bullet point, after ‘would leave York’ add ‘with tough challenges to balance its budget but before confirmation of our future funding settlement, such an assumption is premature; delete ‘taxpayers paying more while getting less in return.’
To the third bullet point, after ‘input from Scrutiny’ add ‘but unfortunately tight Government timescales prevented it;
To the fourth bullet point, after ‘must reflect this’ add ‘something the Government is currently proposing to do;’
To the seventh bullet point, after ‘administration’ add ‘should outline how it is’, delete ‘must do more to’, amend ‘lobby’ to ‘lobbying’, change the word ‘devastating’ to ‘challenging’ and after ‘Council’s’ add ‘Chief’.
To the eighth bullet point, after ‘from these’ delete ‘flawed and’, replace with ‘potentially’. After ‘proposals’, add ‘rather than taking the ‘party first’ position, as some parties did when austerity was inflicted upon York.’
Under ‘Council resolves’, before ‘formal representation’ amend the first bullet point to add ‘outline any’, delete ‘make a’ and, after ‘representation’, add ‘she or other political leaders have made’.
On being put to a vote, the amendment was declared CARRIED, and it was
Resolved:That the above motion as amended be approved.2
iii.
Tackling Pavement Parking to
Promote Safe, Accessible Streets for All submitted by Councillor
Baxter
“Council notes:
· that pavement parking can obstruct pedestrian paths, endangering older people, those who’re visually impaired, wheelchair users, parents and carers with pushchairs and others using mobility aids, and at its worst, forces people onto roads, creating serious safety risks;
· the law is confusing and unevenly enforced - with criminal and civil rules varying significantly across England, often leading to weak enforcement, while only 5% of drivers are fully aware of the laws around pavement parking;
· in 2025, Hansard reported that 80% of blind or partially sighted people face pavement parking difficulties at least weekly, with some injured through being forced onto roads;
· that pavement parking damages surfaces, creating trip hazards and repair costs that councils and Council taxpayers can ill afford;
· Scotland has introduced a nationwide ban on pavement parking, supported by strong enforcement;
· that parking on pavements, with certain exceptions, has been prohibited in Greater London since 1974;
· Living Streets and its supporters have repeatedly called on the Government to respond to the 2020 consultation on pavement parking and to legislate for a clear nationwide ban, but progress has stalled.
Council believes:
· Pavements are for pedestrians, not vehicles, and should be safe, accessible, and free of obstructions;
· Current laws are both inadequate and poorly understood, undermining enforcement and public confidence in what is and isn’t permitted;
· The Council and the national Labour Government have a duty to lead on this issue, learning from good practice and legislation elsewhere;
· Stronger local and national measures, combined with public awareness-raising, are urgently needed.
Council resolves:
· to request the Executive Member for Transport writes to the Government, seeking publication of the long-overdue response to the 2020 pavement-parking consultation, undertaken by the previous Government, without delay and rapid subsequent action and/or legislation to include:
o national prohibition on pavement parking with sensible local exemptions only where genuinely necessary; and
o streamlining Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) procedures, making it easier, quicker, and less costly for local authorities to impose pavement parking restrictions where necessary; and
o sufficient funding and resources for local authorities to implement and enforce the changes, given the significant initial resource burden;
· to empower council officers to explore the use of TROs on key streets suffering from excessive pavement parking, while noting the TRO process is currently lengthy and expensive;
· to support Living Streets’ recommendation to accompany any new pavement parking law with a targeted national awareness campaign explaining the dangers and legal changes to the public;
· to work collaboratively with local organisations such as Living Streets, Walk York, York Civic Trust, York Disability Rights Forum and other walking and disability advocacy groups to co-produce accessible guidance and communications on pavement parking rights and responsibilities, to raise greater awareness of the challenges pavement parking can cause;
The below amendment to the wording of the above motion by Councillor Baxter under Rule B15.2:
Under Council resolves, to the final bullet point, remove ‘York Disability Rights Forum’.
On being put to the vote, the amendment was declared CARRIED and it was
Resolved that the above motion, as amended, be approved.3
|
Action Required To
note approval of the motion on planning process improvements and
take appropriate action.
|
BE |
Councillor Margaret Wells
Deputy Lord Mayor of York
(The meeting started at 6.33 pm and concluded at 9.48 pm)