Council – 27 March 2025

Motions, Amendments and Recommendations

Agenda Item 9 - Recommendations of the Executive: Review of the City of York Council Scrutiny Function

Executive 11 March 2025

(Minute 89: Review of the City of York Council Scrutiny Function)

Recommended:

i. That Council endorse the proposed actions as set out in Annex B in respect of Scrutiny Review Report recommendations 1-2, 4-7 and 9-12, noting that a cross-party working group will be established to lead on and oversee the work;

ii. To recommend that, in respect of recommendation 8 of the Scrutiny Review Report, Full Council resolves to implement a revised Scrutiny structure, comprising an overarching Scrutiny Committee (including callingin functions) with nine seats, a Place Committee with nine seats, and a People Committee (to include Housing) with nine seats. These changes to take effect at the 2025 Annual General Meeting and will be reviewed in 12 months;

iii. To recommend to Council that Recommendation 3 of the Scrutiny Review Report is not adopted.

Reason: To seek Full Council’s approval for changes to how Scrutiny operates at the Council.

Agenda Item 11 - Recommendations of the Audit and Governance Committee: Polling District and Polling Place Review

Audit And Governance Committee, 17 March 2025

(Minute 68: Polling District and Polling Place Review)

Recommended:

i. That Council agree the final recommendations to the polling places and districts as set out in Annex 1 of this report until the next statutory review, or until it is superseded by any subsequent review of any polling place or district;

ii. That Council agree to publish the revised electoral register on 1 May 2025. (Where the ERO has decided to revise their register by republishing it to incorporate the changes, the law requires that they publish a notice 14 calendar days before the publication of the revised version of the register in a local newspaper, at their office and at some other conspicuous place or places in the area);

iii. That Council agree to delegate to the Chief Operating Officer, in their capacity as the Council’s Returning Officer, the power to make urgent changes to the polling scheme during a statutory election period, where time does not permit a report to be presented to the Audit and Governance Committee. Where such urgent changes are proposed, the Chair and Vice Chair of the Committee will be consulted, along with the relevant ward councillors. This will ensure that polling arrangements in the City remain fit for purpose for each election called.

Reason: To comply with statutory requirements and to give better flexibility with making decisions regarding polling places between statutory reviews.

Agenda Item 12 - Recommendations of the Licensing and Regulatory Committee: Licensing Act 2003 - Cumulative Impact Assessment and Statement of Licensing Policy

Licensing And Regulatory Committee, 5 March 2025

(Minute 87: Licensing Act 2003 - Cumulative Impact Assessment and Statement of Licensing Policy)

Recommended: That it be recommended to Council that the draft Policy and/or CIA is amended with alternative wording agreed by members.

Reason: To meet the legislative requirements of the Licensing Act 2005.

Agenda Item 13 - Director of Public Health Annual Report 2024/25

Recommended: Council are recommended to publish this Director of Public Health Annual Report 2024/25.

Reason: To fulfil their duty under the Health and Care Act 2012, and to progress work on improving the health of young people in the city.

Agenda Item 14 - Proposed Change to the Health and Wellbeing Board Terms of Reference

Recommended: Council is recommended to approve the revised Terms of Reference for the Health and Wellbeing Board.

Reason: In order to update the terms of reference in line with the Health and Wellbeing Board’s requirements.

Agenda Item 17 - Motions on Notice

Motions on Notice submitted under Council Procedure Rule B10:

i) From Cllr Whitcroft

Introduction of a Visitor Levy

“Council notes:

· that York attracts over 8 million visitors annually, significantly contributing to the local economy but placing additional strain on infrastructure, public services, and the local environment;

· that many cities, such as Venice and Amsterdam, successfully employ tourist levies to offset these impacts, without deterring visitors to the local economy;

· a visitor levy could provide additional revenue for maintaining public spaces, public transport, heritage conservation, waste management, sustainability projects, supporting the city’s long-term goals and for promoting York;

· that recent budget consultations demonstrated strong public support for the introduction of a visitor levy in York, with around 90% of York residents who responded to the consultation in favour.

Council believes:

· it is great to live in a place that millions of people from all over the world want to come and spend time in;

· welcome though visitors are, a visitor levy would allow York to ensure visitors contribute fairly to the city's upkeep and to its sustainability, and to better manage the pressures that mass tourism brings;

· funds should be ring-fenced for projects and initiatives that enhance the visitor and resident experience, improve public services, provide better facilities and reduce the environmental impact of tourism;

· evidence from numerous cities shows a modest visitor levy would not deter tourists and is now an accepted contribution across Europe to the costs of maintaining and enhancing popular visitor destinations;

· the council should work to develop the case for a tourism visitor levy with its partners, including the hospitality, arts and culture sectors, as well as with business and residents’ groups.

Council resolves to ask Executive to continue to progress:

· exploring the feasibility and practical mechanisms for introducing a visitor levy for overnight stays, including for short-term holidays lets, in consultation with local businesses, residents, and hospitality industry stakeholders;

· researching visitor levy models from other cities to determine the best approach for York, including an Accommodation Business Improvement District (ABID) option;

· lobbying central government to grant local authorities the necessary legal powers to implement a compulsory visitor levy;

in order to ensure York’s tourism remains sustainable, benefiting residents and visitors alike.”

Amendment from Cllr Warters:

“After ‘Council notes’ and after the fourth bullet point add a fifth bullet point with the following wording;

· In addition there is of course the long standing public support in York for an end to the Council Tax Educational Exemption that sees York, as a University City, disproportionately affected with a loss in Council Tax revenue now approaching £7 million a year.

After ‘Council believes’ and after the second bullet point insert a further bullet point to read;

· Reforming the Council Tax system to ensure students living in York also contribute fairly to the City’s upkeep, its sustainability and to better manage the pressures that being a University City brings.

After ‘Council resolves to ask Executive to continue to progress’ and after the third bullet point add a fourth bullet point to say the following;

· Lobbying Central Government for a urgent review of Council Tax legislation with a request for removal of the Council Tax Educational Exemption in the interests of residents, visitors and students and the equitable treatment of all in being levied taxation to support the places they live or visit.

In the final sentence of the motion delete of the words ‘York’s tourism’ and to add after the word ‘ensure’ the following;

‘the maintenance of York is better funded and’.”

For information, the effect of the amendment on the above motion, with changes highlighted in bold:

“Council notes:

· that York attracts over 8 million visitors annually, significantly contributing to the local economy but placing additional strain on infrastructure, public services, and the local environment;

· that many cities, such as Venice and Amsterdam, successfully employ tourist levies to offset these impacts, without deterring visitors to the local economy;

· that recent budget consultations demonstrated strong public support for the introduction of a visitor levy in York, with around 90% of York residents who responded to the consultation in favour.

Council believes:

· it is great to live in a place that millions of people from all over the world want to come and spend time in;

· the council should work to develop the case for a tourism visitor levy with its partners, including the hospitality, arts and culture sectors, as well as with business and residents’ groups.

Council resolves to ask Executive to continue to progress:

· researching visitor levy models from other cities to determine the best approach for York, including an Accommodation Business Improvement District (ABID) option;

· lobbying central government to grant local authorities the necessary legal powers to implement a compulsory visitor levy;

in order to ensure the maintenance of York is better funded and remains sustainable, benefiting residents and visitors alike.”

Amendment from Cllr Widdowson

“Under ‘Council resolves…’, after the third bullet point add two additional bullet points:

· ‘the introduction of a tourism levy – in voluntary or mandatory form - by May 2027 at the latest;

· the start of consulting the existing BID and Hospitality Association of York over the introduction of the tourism levy;’”

For information, the effect of the amendment on the above motion, with changes highlighted in bold:

Introduction of a Visitor Levy

“Council notes:

· that York attracts over 8 million visitors annually, significantly contributing to the local economy but placing additional strain on infrastructure, public services, and the local environment;

· that many cities, such as Venice and Amsterdam, successfully employ tourist levies to offset these impacts, without deterring visitors to the local economy;

· that recent budget consultations demonstrated strong public support for the introduction of a visitor levy in York, with around 90% of York residents who responded to the consultation in favour.

Council believes:

· it is great to live in a place that millions of people from all over the world want to come and spend time in;

· the council should work to develop the case for a tourism visitor levy with its partners, including the hospitality, arts and culture sectors, as well as with business and residents’ groups.

Council resolves to ask Executive to continue to progress:

· researching visitor levy models from other cities to determine the best approach for York, including an Accommodation Business Improvement District (ABID) option;

· lobbying central government to grant local authorities the necessary legal powers to implement a compulsory visitor levy;

· the introduction of a tourism levy – in voluntary or mandatory form - by May 2027 at the latest;

· the start of consulting the existing BID and Hospitality Association of York over the introduction of the tourism levy;

in order to ensure York’s tourism remains sustainable, benefiting residents and visitors alike.”

ii) From Cllr Fenton

Changes to disability and long-term sickness benefits

“Council notes that:

· The Government is bringing forward a Green Paper on changes to disability and long-term sickness benefits, including Personal Independence Payments (PIP)

· PIP is a benefit not linked to work that is designed to help people with the additional unavoidable costs of their disablement

· Reports have suggested that the Government is considering freezing PIP payments in 2026 and tightening eligibility criteria, including for reassessments

· Many disabled people use PIP to cover the cost of getting to and from work, for paying for essential equipment and for meeting social care charges

· The Resolution Foundation has commented that “Freezing PIP next year will result in a real-terms income loss for around four million people, 70 per cent of whom are in low-to-middle income households”

· The York-based Joseph Rowntree Foundation has said that “If the Government cuts disability and long-term sickness benefits it will be unethical, short-sighted and can only deepen hardship.”

· York Central MP Rachael Maskell has said that “it is right that the Chancellor has oversight over all those budgets but not at the expense of pushing disabled people into poverty.”

· York Outer MP Luke Charters has signed a letter which states “As MPs, we understand that delivering this new social contract requires hard choices to be made. We welcome the work that has begun to rebuild our welfare system, and we are fully supportive of it.”

· If reports of a £5bn cut to PIP turn out to be true, this would be greater than the cut that led former Conservative Work & Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith to resign from Government in 2016

Council believes that:

If the Government does decide to make significant cuts to PIP and other disability and long-term sickness benefits, there is likely to be a direct impact on City of York Council and its partners in a number of ways, such as:

· An increase in demand for council financial assistance through schemes such as the York Financial Assistance Schemes

· An increase in demand for the council’s means-tested Disabled Facilities Grant

· Increased demand for advice and support from the council’s Local Area Co-ordinators (with the team already carrying vacancies) and partners such as Citizens Advice York

· An increase in the number of disabled residents who may be unable to afford care charges, impacting on their ability to continue to live independently

· Those disabled people currently in receipt of the high rate mobility component of PIP whose awards are downgraded will lose entitlement to a Motability vehicle, which would impact significantly on social isolation and create further dependence

Council resolves:

· To request the relevant Scrutiny Committee to undertake a review via a Task and Finish Group, when detailed Government proposals on disability and long-term sickness benefits are known in order to identify likely impacts on the demand for support from the council and its local partners.”

Amendment from Cllr J Burton

“Under ‘Council notes that’,

- at the second bullet point, delete ‘their disablement’ and add ‘being disabled’.

- After the sixth bullet point, insert two additional bullet points to read:

• ‘The fear that many disabled people feel around the impact of any cut to PIP

• The need for careful language when discussing issues around welfare or disability so as not to unnecessarily demonise those in need or give any validation to those who wrongfully or maliciously characterise welfare recipients as scroungers or undeserving;’

Under ‘Council believes that’:

- before the first paragraph, insert three bullet points to read:

• Reviewing welfare support to ensure all members of society are able to engage with society and live fulfilling lives is welcome;

• Any review of welfare support should not be predicated on a pre-determined cost saving;

• Support for disabled people has been severely impacted by years of austerity. Disabled people need better support, not a cut in income.

- at the third existing bullet point, delete ‘(with the team already carrying vacancies)’

- at the fifth existing bullet point, after the words ‘currently in receipt of the’, delete ‘high’ and insert ‘higher’; after the words ‘component of PIP’ add the words ‘,who have a Motobility vehicle and’; after the word ‘downgraded,’ delete ‘will’ and add ‘would’, and after the words ‘create further dependence’ add ‘and could stop them being able to get to and from work. (PIP is not an out of work benefit).’

Under ‘Council resolves’, before the first bullet point, add:

· ‘To ask the Leader of the Council to write to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister to express;

• this Council’s strong belief that welfare reform must not be predicated on financial savings and in particular, cuts to PIP;

• that as a Council we recognise the difficult financial situation the country faces and believe the correct way to address this is by tackling the enormous wealth inequalities that exist in our society, not by removing desperately needed support from those least able to bear the cost;

• the severe impact of austerity on support services and the soaring levels of need;

• that following the social model of disability necessitates that National and Local Government work tirelessly to remove barriers – whether physical or financial – to ensure disabled people are able to live socially, emotionally and financially secure and fulfilling lives which puts them on an equal footing with non-disabled people;”

For information, the effect of the amendment on the above motion, with changes highlighted in bold:

“Council notes that:

· The Government is bringing forward a Green Paper on changes to disability and long-term sickness benefits, including Personal Independence Payments (PIP)

· PIP is a benefit not linked to work that is designed to help people with the additional unavoidable costs of being disabled;

· Reports have suggested that the Government is considering freezing PIP payments in 2026 and tightening eligibility criteria, including for reassessments

· Many disabled people use PIP to cover the cost of getting to and from work, for paying for essential equipment and for meeting social care charges

· The York-based Joseph Rowntree Foundation has said that “If the Government cuts disability and long-term sickness benefits it will be unethical, short-sighted and can only deepen hardship.”

· The fear that many disabled people feel around the impact of any cut to PIP

· The need for careful language when discussing issues around welfare or disability so as not to unnecessarily demonise those in need or give any validation to those who wrongfully or maliciously characterise welfare recipients as scroungers or undeserving;

· York Central MP Rachael Maskell has said that “it is right that the Chancellor has oversight over all those budgets but not at the expense of pushing disabled people into poverty.”

· If reports of a £5bn cut to PIP turn out to be true, this would be greater than the cut that led former Conservative Work & Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith to resign from Government in 2016

Council believes that:

· Reviewing welfare support to ensure all members of society are able to engage with society and live fulfilling lives is welcome;

· Any review of welfare support should not be predicated on a pre-determined cost saving;

· Support for disabled people has been severely impacted by years of austerity. Disabled people need better support, not a cut in income.

· An increase in demand for council financial assistance through schemes such as the York Financial Assistance Schemes

· An increase in demand for the council’s means-tested Disabled Facilities Grant

· Increased demand for advice and support from the council’s Local Area Co-ordinators and partners such as Citizens Advice York

· An increase in the number of disabled residents who may be unable to afford care charges, impacting on their ability to continue to live independently

· Those disabled people currently in receipt of the higher rate mobility component of PIP, who have a Motobility vehicle and whose awards are downgraded would lose entitlement to a Motability vehicle, which would impact significantly on social isolation and create further dependence and could stop them being able to get to and from work. (PIP is not an out of work benefit).

Council resolves:

· To ask the Leader of the Council to write to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister to express;

o this Council’s strong belief that welfare reform must not be predicated on financial savings and in particular, cuts to PIP;

o that as a Council we recognise the difficult financial situation the country faces and believe the correct way to address this is by tackling the enormous wealth inequalities that exist in our society, not by removing desperately needed support from those least able to bear the cost;

o the severe impact of austerity on support services and the soaring levels of need;

o that following the social model of disability necessitates that National and Local Government work tirelessly to remove barriers – whether physical or financial – to ensure disabled people are able to live socially, emotionally and financially secure and fulfilling lives which puts them on an equal footing with non-disabled people;

iii) From Cllr Baxter

Working to tackle the growing epidemic of violence against women and girls (VAWG)

“Council notes:

· its approved 2021 VAWG motion and the worsening situation four years on;

· the Government’s commitment to halve VAWG in the next decade but recognises that this bold ambition requires action from everyone;

· that VAWG is significantly underreported. North Yorkshire Police recorded 2000 domestic abuse incidents for York last year but estimates indicate more than 4000;

· that commissioned support services in York and North Yorkshire supported 14,000 victims and survivors of domestic abuse in 2023/24;

· that children witnessing domestic abuse causes them significant harm;

· the physical and emotional cost of VAWG on survivors and their families, friends and communities is devastating and includes depression, PTSD, brain injuries, long-term pain, self-harm, miscarriage and other pregnancy complications;

· National Police Chiefs Council reported that between April 2022 to March 2023 more women died by suicide following domestic abuse than by being killed by a partner;

· research has drawn a link between misogynistic online content and unhealthy and negative attitudes to relationships;

· the York Schools Survey highlights around 15% of children disagree that hitting or kicking and sharing undressed or sexual photos of a person with someone else is always wrong in a relationship. Under half thought that telling a partner what to wear, checking where they are all the time and being jealous is always wrong;

· approval of York and North Yorkshire’s Domestic Abuse Strategy in 2024, the council’s recent Domestic Abuse Resident and Tenant Policy and the council’s commitment to work towards Domestic Abuse Housing Alliance (DAHA) accreditation.

Council believes:

· VAWG is an epidemic and responding to it is everyone’s responsibility;

· sexism and misogyny, as some of the drivers of domestic abuse, must be addressed early through prevention work with children and young people;

· action is needed from councillors, the justice system, education and NHS partners and Combined Authorities to turn the tide on VAWG in our communities;

· that survivors in York should have the right to access specialist, trauma-informed support;

· specialist services are best placed to support survivors and likely to result in less need for additional service support in the future.

Council resolves:

· that City of York Council’s (CYC) Domestic Abuse Awareness Day, which took place last December during 16 days of action to tackle VAWG, be repeated each year, with learning shared with CYC Human Resources and partner organisations encouraged to run similar events;

· to ask the Council Leader to write to other council leaders in our region to encourage them adopt a similar approach around awareness raising across services and about VAWG being everyone’s responsibility;

· to work closely with survivors and local specialist and ‘by and for’ services to understand the impact of VAWG in York;

· building on existing good work at Vale of York Academy, to work through both the council and local Multi Academy Trust chains to ensure comprehensive education on healthy relationships and respect for women and girls is available in all schools across York;

· that the Executive Member for Housing, Planning and Safer Communities uses the new council reporting format to frequently update the public on steps being taken to reduce VAWG, and to hold the council and partners to account on these commitments.”