|
City of York Council |
Committee Minutes |
|
|
Meeting |
People Scrutiny Committee |
|
|
Date |
8 October 2025 |
|
|
Present |
Councillors J Burton (Chair), Waller (Vice-Chair), Clarke, Cuthbertson, Moroney, Nelson, Nicholls, Runciman and Hook (Substitute for Councillor Mason) |
|
|
Apologies
In attendance
Officers in attendance |
Councillor Mason
Councillor Pavlovic – Executive Member for Housing, Planning and Safer Communities Councillor Steels-Walshaw – Executive Member for Health, Wellbeing and Adult Social Care
Pauline Stuchfield – Director of Housing and Communities Laura Williams – Assistant Director, Customer, Communities and Inclusion Sara Storey – Corporate Director of Adult Social Care Martin Kelly – Corporate Director of Children and Education Angela Padfield - Head of Adult Learning Service - York Learning James Parker – Scrutiny Officer |
|
1. Apologies for Absence (5:34pm)
Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Mason, who was substituted by Councillor Hook.
2. Declarations of Interest (5:35pm)
Members were asked to declare at this point in the meeting any disclosable pecuniary interest or other registerable interest they might have in respect of business on the agenda if they had not already done so in advance on the Register of Interests.
Councillor Nelson declared an interest in item 5, Neighbourhood Model Update, in that her husband was a social worker at City of York Council (CYC).
3. Public Participation (5:35pm)
It was reported that there had been no registrations to speak at the meeting under the Council’s Public Participation Scheme.
4. Minutes (5:35pm)
Resolved: That the minutes of the meeting held on 9 July 2025 be approved as a correct record.
5. Neighbourhood Model Update (5:35pm)
The Director of Housing and Communities and Assistant Director, Customer, Communities and Inclusion presented the report and noted that efforts had now moved on from design principles to building the Neighbourhood Model, in which the main aim was to ensure joint up local services and closer working together.
In response to questions from Members, the Director of Housing and Communities and Assistant Director, Customer, Communities and Inclusion confirmed that:
· Funding through the Housing Estate Improvement Programme (HEIP) was no longer available and had instead been replaced by funding available through the Neighbourhood Improvement Plan. Proposals would come through officers and members where necessary for local improvement priorities.
· There was an intention for community involvement to be included in the plan shortly and would grow organically and differently through differences in areas of the city.
· Areas of the city as identified in the plan were more for staff working in the areas than for residents and were not intended to be hard boundaries, as an example, someone in the East area could access services in other areas if it were geographically preferable. It was understood that people, especially in more rural areas, would need to travel for some services. If transport would be needed, then sustainable transport options would be considered, and this work would tie in with other council transport strategies.
The Executive Member for Housing, Planning and Safer Communities highlighted that residents and councillors had the opportunity to identify schemes within communities, as done previously with funding through HEIP.
The Executive Member for Health, Wellbeing and Adult Social Care advised that some areas would need different services than other areas dependent on health needs among other reasons and as such work was ongoing with different areas to highlight necessity.
Members and Officers discussed the report and feedback was provided. The following points were made:
· Local estate Walkabouts needed to be better aligned, and work was continuing to ensure closer working between services.
· Residents in greater and more rural areas would need support as a large amount of travel may be required.
It was resolved that:
i. The People Scrutiny Committee would request an update from Officers detailing the difference in responsibilities between Estate Workers, Public Realm, and Neighbourhood Caretakers, and that details of staffing levels and capacity of each team, with a geographic breakdown,
Reason: To ensure that members and ward councillors can see what coverage there is in their respective areas and enable the public and members to understand what can be done overall to tackle street level issues.
ii. The People Scrutiny Committee would request an update from Officers on access to the Neighbourhood Improvement Plan.
Reason: To ensure that tenants and members can apply for funding improvements in their respective areas.
iii. The People Scrutiny Committee noted the progress made on workstreams and considered any comments or recommendations for consideration in the November report to Executive.
Reason: To enable Scrutiny to contribute to the development of the Neighbourhood Model ahead of further work and reporting to Executive.
[The Committee adjourned from 6:40pm to 6:45pm]
6. Adult Social Care Strategy (6:45pm)
The Executive Member for Health, Wellbeing and Adult Social Care presented the report and noted that the strategy had been created with every resident in mind in order to allow them to live with dignity. It was acknowledged that CYC was currently underway on working on many of the next steps.
The Corporate Director of Adult Social Care highlighted that consultation had been extended and was open for a long period of time to receive feedback.
In response to questions from members, the Corporate Director of Adult Social Care, and the Executive Member for Health, Wellbeing and Adult Social Care confirmed that:
· Valuing carers was important, and involvement of the carers action group had been sought through the strategy. As many carers didn’t identify as carers more work could be done to improve the knowledge of support available to them.
· Much of the vision contained within the strategy was statutory, and Best Value guidance would be considered when considering all social care needs.
· Feedback from the formal adult social care questionnaire continued to be sought on a continuous cycle. The questionnaire as seen on page 42 of the agenda showed a snapshot of the data at the time of reporting. Feedback had also identified the need for a workforce development strategy.
· One main goal was for people’s safety, but it was understood that this might not be people’s first priority as people may take risks in order to live more independently etc.
· SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-bound) goals would follow in the next steps of the plan.
It was resolved that the People Scrutiny Committee:
i. Supported the vision, commitments, approaches, and priorities outlined in the Strategy.
Reason: To allow a shared understanding of direction and purpose of Adult Social Care across the system.
ii. Supported publication of the Adult Social Care Strategy.
Reason: To enable clear communication of the city’s vision and priorities for adult social care.
iii. Supported the next actions.
Reason: To enable clear accountability for implementation and delivery on the strategy and ensure continued involvement from interested parties.
7. York Learning 2024-2025 Strategic Plan Performance (7:18pm)
The Head of Adult Learning Service - York Learning presented the report and noted that the plan was based on an accountability agreement which must be agreed, before academic year, with the Executive. The Report showed how York Learning performed against the accountability agreement, and how government funding was used to achieve objectives.
The Head of Adult Learning Service - York Learning reported that Trailblazer was a project to help people with issues through health, access, and/or get back into work. York Learning help by investigating work vacancies and in helping develop CVs.
In response to questions from members, the Head of Adult Learning Service - York Learning confirmed that:
· Working with teachers from York College to teach learners in specific subjects to introduce a familiar face. To this end, cyber security was being taught to combat a gap in the job market for cyber security.
· York Learning are also providing a pathway via trailblazers for post-16 age education who are currently NEET (Not in Education, Employment, or Training), and who don’t suit college education – which is a group of people where there was a lack of funding for.
· Development within York Learning had been made to ensure the organisation was best placed for supporting those whose achievements had been affected by mental health issues.
· Regarding functional skills maths achievement results, York Learning were working nationally with Government bodies and exam boards on different wording of questions to ensure that level 2 maths questions are written in level 2 English (equivalent to GCSE level).
· Bootcamps fit a specific funding stream and identified skills need which would be funded by the Government, and the York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority. Bootcamps did not run if they didn’t fit the right criteria.
Resolved:
· That the People Scrutiny Committee considered the Strategic/Service Plan, as seen in the agenda, and approved it.
Reason: To help monitor the service and provide sound governance arrangement for York Learning Services.
8. Work Plan (7:44pm)
Resolved: That Members considered the Committee’s workplan for the current municipal year.
Reason: To keep the committee’s work plan for the 2025/26 municipal year updated.
Cllr J Burton, Chair
[The meeting started at 5.34 pm and finished at 7.45 pm].