Agenda, decisions and minutes

At this point, Members are asked to declare any personal or prejudicial interest they may have in the business on this agenda.

Members were invited to declare at this point in the meeting any personal or prejudicial interests they might have in the business on the agenda.  No interests were declared.

To approve and sign the minutes of the meeting of the Executive held on 12 February 2008.

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the Executive meeting held on 12 February 2008 be approved and signed by the Chair as a correct record.

At this point in the meeting, members of the public who registered their wish to speak regarding an item on the agenda or an issue within the Executive’s remit can do so.  The deadline for registering is 5:00 pm on Monday 25 February 2008.

It was reported that there had been no registrations to speak at the meeting under the Council’s Public Participation Scheme.

Cllr Fraser addressed the meeting in respect of agenda item 8 (Business in City Centre Peripheral Streets), as a Micklegate Ward Member and the mover of the motion to Council referred to in this item.  He welcomed the report as a first step in the process of developing an action plan to encourage economic regeneration in the peripheral streets.  He stressed the need in this context to consider Micklegate and Blossom Street together as a single area and to ensure that proper resources were allocated for any development work agreed.  Suggestions for action included working to promote dialogue between local traders, using the re-opening of the Odeon cinema as a promotional opportunity, street signing from car parks and the City Centre, and advertising on Park and Ride buses.

To receive details of those items that are listed on the Executive Forward Plan for the next two meetings.

Members received and noted details of those items that were currently listed on the Forward Plan for the next two Executive meetings.

This report presents the draft minutes of recent meetings of the Local Development Framework Working Group, the Social Inclusion Working Group and the Young People’s Working Group and asks Members to consider the advice given by these groups in their capacity as advisory bodies to the Executive.

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the Working Groups be noted.

REASON:      In accordance with the requirements of the Council’s Constitution regarding the role of Working Groups.

Members considered a report which presented the draft minutes of the Local Development Framework Working Group (LDFWG) meeting on 8 January 2008, the Social Inclusion Working Group (SIWG) meeting on 16 January 2008 and the Young People’s Working Group (YPWG) meeting on 17 January 2008.

Members’ attention was drawn in particular to:

• The initial comments of the LDFWG on the Open Space, Sport and Recreation Study (minute 33)
• The decisions of the SIWG in respect of Funding Requests (minute 27)
• The SIWG’s intention to hold a ‘Development Day’ (minutes 25 & 26)
• The recommendations of the YPWG regarding the system of allocating ‘Youth Opportunities and Capital Funding’ monies (minute 16).

Having noted the comments of the Shadow Executive, it was

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the Working Groups be noted.

REASON:      In accordance with the requirements of the Council’s Constitution regarding the role of Working Groups.

This report considers the role of Neighbourhood Management within the Council, in response to the Local Government White Paper ‘Strong and Prosperous Communities’ and The Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007, and makes recommendations for the future delivery of neighbourhood management in York.

[See also under Part B minutes]

RESOLVED: (i)         That the content of the report, and in particular the potential opportunities available to strengthen neighbourhood delivery and communications, consultation and involvement of local people in local decisions, be welcomed.

                        (ii)        That, in respect of Issue A, a refreshed model of neighbourhood management broadly in line with Model 1 – increased democracy and participation – be approved, as exemplified in Annex 1 to the report.

                        (iii)       That, in respect of Issue B, Option 1 -  the continuation of a devolution model around delivery via ward committees, as existing, be approved, to support and facilitate engagement at a local level.

                        (iv)       That the development of Neighbourhood Action Plans (NAPs) be approved as a vehicle for delivering the adopted neighbourhood model and tying together the strategic vision of the City and the local vision (Issue C, Annex 2).

                        (v)        That the production of a citywide Consultation and Engagement Strategy be approved to support the refreshed neighbourhood model and consistent consultation across the Council (Issue D, Annex 3).

                        (vi)       That the successful delivery of ward committee local improvement schemes in York, via a participatory budgeting process be noted and that it be recognised that the continuation of this approach will assist the local authority as it continues to inform, consult and involve the local public in local decisions (Issue E, Annex 4).

                        (vii)      That, in respect of Issue F, Option 3 be approved and the Neighbourhood Management Unit (NMU) be requested to work with the Economic Development Unit on options for tackling deprivation in ward based communities.

                        (viii)     That it be noted that it may not be possible to provide additional support for building based community facilities from existing resources within the NMU, but it is anticipated that the demand for additional devolution of this sort will be limited in York (Issue G, Annex 6).

                        (ix)       That it be noted that the Councillor Call for Action (CcfA) will be implemented from April 2008 (Issue H, Annex 7)

                        (x)        That, in respect of Issue I, a review of working arrangements, with those parish councils that request it be approved, in line with Option 2 detailed in Annex 8 to the report, provided that any revised processes are cost neutral.

                        (xi)       That Officers be advised that additional resources are unlikely to be available to the NMU, but that any restructuring proposals considered to be essential can be the subject of a further report to the Executive at a later date.

                        (xii)      That the notice of motion referred to in paragraph 2 be referred to Council together with the recommendations of the Executive on the report.

REASON:      To respond to the issues raised within the Members’ Policy Prospectus on 23 May 2007 and the notice of motion to Council and to provide guidance on options for the future delivery of Neighbourhood Management.

[See also under Part B minutes]

Members considered a report which considered the role of Neighbourhood Management within the Council, in response to the Local Government White Paper ‘Strong and Prosperous Communities’ and The Local Government and Public Involvement in Health (LGPIH) Act 2007, and made recommendations for the future delivery of neighbourhood management in York.

The report provided an update on progress against a number of issues raised in the ‘Policy Prospectus’ agreed by Group Leaders on 23 May 2007, against the background of the legislation and the current role and successes of the Neighbourhood Management Unit (NMU).  It also took account of a notice of motion on Community Leadership and Neighbourhood Management, considered by the Executive on 15 January 2008 (Minute 138 of that meeting refers).  The Executive had deferred referral of the motion to Council pending consideration of this review report.

Members were invited to consider a number of changes to enhance the Council’s approach to neighbourhood management and engagement and, in particular, options in respect of the following issues, as detailed in the report annexes:

Issue A - a refreshed model of Neighbourhood management (Annex 1):

Model 1 – a model developed around increasing the democratic platform of the Council and participation in the decision making process.  This was the recommended option, as it would be simpler to achieve and would meet the government’s agenda;

Model 2 – a model developed around increased localised services and neighbourhood management.

Issue B – option for devolution of ward committees and area forums (Annex 1):

Option 1 – continue with the current arrangements for devolution via ward committees – this would be the option taken should Model 1 above be followed;

Option 2 – transfer support from ward committees to area forums.  This could result in less public engagement but would give NMU officers more capacity to target hard to reach groups and support elected Members.

Issue F – narrowing the gap of deprivation (Annex 5):

Option 1 – continue with the current of budget allocation;

Option 2 – apply a budget matrix alongside a baseline allocation of funding, thereby accounting for deprivation, and publish a Social Inclusion Strategy;

Option 3 – ask the NMU to work with the Economic Development Unit on other options for tackling deprivation in ward based communities.

Issue I – the role of parish councils (Annex 8):

Option 1 – continue the existing arrangements with parish councils (PCs);

Option 2 – review the working relationships with PCs to achieve better co-ordination at a neighbourhood level;

Option 3 – instigate a formal review of parish arrangements in the City, under the provisions of the LGPIH Act 2007;

Option 4 – investigate devolution to PCs, including passporting the ward committee local improvement schemes budget.

With regard to the government’s ‘Councillor Calls for Action’ (CCfA) proposals (Issue H), Members expressed the hope that the CCfA process would be used only rarely, as most issues could be dealt with more appropriately through existing channels.

Having noted the comments  ...  view the full minutes text for item 170.

This report sets out background information on the Government’s review of sub-national economic development and regeneration, considers the implications of this review for the Leeds City Region and proposes specific actions for the Executive to consider in order to maximise the benefits for York.

RESOLVED: That the actions set out in paragraph 9 of the report and summarised below be approved, in order to maximise the benefits to York of the SNR and the LCR, while noting the potential pitfalls of such a move, some of which are mentioned in paragraph 10 of the report:

a)     Ensure appropriate representation on key thematic Panels within the LCR, where these are relevant to the initiatives identified in paragraph 8.

b)     Ensure that York’s Business Panel representative is fully briefed on York related issues.

c)      Work with contiguous LCR partners who may have similar aspirations, namely Harrogate, Selby and Ryedale.

d)     Within the above, begin to consider how the LSP and partnership working might interlock with the aspirations and ambitions of these neighbouring authorities.

e)     Work with Leeds business representatives through York Professionals, Visit York and Science City York.

f)        Ensure that dialogue is taking place to build the relationship with Yorkshire Forward at a senior level and work with Yorkshire Forward to seek their direct investment in York to support economic development priorities.

g)     Ensure that appropriate officers are involved in developing a Multi-Area Agreement for the LCR.

h)      Ensure that York’s case for the designation of York North West as one of the Government’s New Growth Points is articulated within the LCR endorsement process.

REASON:      To help shape the effectiveness of future action.

Members considered a report which set out background information on the Government’s Sub-National Review of economic development and regeneration (SNR), considered the implications of this review for the Leeds City Region (LCR) and proposed specific actions in order to maximise the benefits for York.

A summary of the proposals set out in the SNR was attached Annex A to the report.  Some of the proposed structural changes would require legislation and consultation was likely to take place early this year on their implementation.  In essence, the SNR envisaged a stronger role for City Regions and sub-regional working in order to enhance economic growth and competitiveness.  At this stage, the key element for York was to maximise the opportunities presented by the LCR.  This would involve developing a clear strategy of engagement, with representatives involved in LCR having a clear briefing on relevant issues.

Paragraph 8 of the report highlighted particular initiatives within York that had a strong impact on the LCR, including: Access York; York North-West; Tourism; Science City York; and a Multi-Area Agreement focused on skills, labour market mobility and transport.  Actions recommended to ensure that York helped to shape the LCR agenda and to articulate the City’s ambition and potential were set out in paragraph 9. 

Members highlighted potential threats to York posed by the review, in particular the transference of power from the Regional Assembly to Yorkshire Forward and the possible future development of the LCR towards a ‘mayoral’ model.

Having noted the comments of the Shadow Executive, it was

RESOLVED: That the actions set out in paragraph 9 of the report and summarised below be approved, in order to maximise the benefits to York of the SNR and the LCR, while noting the potential pitfalls of such a move, some of which are mentioned in paragraph 10 of the report:¹

a)     Ensure appropriate representation on key thematic Panels within the LCR, where these are relevant to the initiatives identified in paragraph 8.

b)     Ensure that York’s Business Panel representative is fully briefed on York related issues.

c)      Work with contiguous LCR partners who may have similar aspirations, namely Harrogate, Selby and Ryedale.

d)     Within the above, begin to consider how the LSP and partnership working might interlock with the aspirations and ambitions of these neighbouring authorities.

e)     Work with Leeds business representatives through York Professionals, Visit York and Science City York.

f)        Ensure that dialogue is taking place to build the relationship with Yorkshire Forward at a senior level and work with Yorkshire Forward to seek their direct investment in York to support economic development priorities.

g)     Ensure that appropriate officers are involved in developing a Multi-Area Agreement for the LCR.

h)      Ensure that York’s case for the designation of York North West as one of the Government’s New Growth Points is articulated within the LCR endorsement process.

REASON:      To help shape the effectiveness of future action.

This report advises the Executive of the final score for UOR CPA 2007, based on the criteria scores provided by the Audit Commission, and the detailed findings and recommendations made by the District Auditor in his final report to the Council on the UOR CPA 2007.

RESOLVED: (i)         That the final scores for the 2007 UOR CPA assessment and the successful step back up to an overall 3 in 2007 from 2 in 2006 be noted.

                        (ii)        That the report of the District Auditor attached as Annex A be noted.

REASON:      So that Members are informed on the moderated score for national publication by the Audit Commission and on the detailed findings and conclusions of the District Auditor.

Members considered a report which informed them of the final score for the Use of Resources (UOR) Comprehensive Performance Assessment (CPA) for 2007, based on the criteria scores provided by the Audit Commission, and presented the detailed findings and recommendations of the District Auditor (DA) in respect of the UOR CPA, attached as Annex A to the report.

It was noted that the Council’s overall UOR CPA score had improved from a 2 in 2006 to a 3 in 2007 and that the DA had recorded two instances of ‘notable practice’, in respect of the Fraud service arrangements and the annual financial report.  There had also been key improvements in several of the Key Lines of Enquiry (KLOE) scores, notably Financial Reporting (KLOE 1.2), Internal Control (KLOE 4.3) and Value for Money (KLOE 5.2).  Although performance in some areas had worsened, the Council had scored well overall in respect of the detailed criteria tested across KLOEs 1-4.

The rolling UOR CPA action plan detailed all the outstanding actions necessary to address areas for improvement in order to be compliant at each level of the CPA criteria.  The Council had succeeded in obtaining full or discretionary passes in 2007 in respect of those criteria previously identified as critical to achieving an overall score of 3 for the 2007 UOR CPA.  Work was on-going to consolidate the current position and prepare for the 2008 assessment.  An update report on progress against priority actions that needed to be completed before the end of the current year would be considered by Corporate Management Team in March 2008.

Members expressed their thanks to Officers for their work in securing a significant improvement in service quality in this area.

Having noted the comments of the Shadow Executive, it was

RESOLVED: (i)         That the final scores for the 2007 UOR CPA assessment and the successful step back up to an overall 3 in 2007 from 2 in 2006 be noted.

                        (ii)        That the report of the District Auditor attached as Annex A be noted.

REASON:      So that Members are be informed on the moderated score for national publication by the Audit Commission and on the detailed findings and conclusions of the District Auditor.

[See also under Part A minutes]

RECOMMENDED:That Council consider the notice of motion on Community Leadership and Neighbourhood Management, together with the decisions of the Executive in respect of the recommendations in the report (see under Part A minutes, Minute 170).

REASON:                  In accordance with the procedures set out in Standing Orders.

[See also under Part A minutes]

Members considered a report which considered the role of Neighbourhood Management within the Council, in response to the Local Government White Paper ‘Strong and Prosperous Communities’ and The Local Government and Public Involvement in Health (LGPIH) Act 2007, and made recommendations for the future delivery of neighbourhood management in York.

The report provided an update on progress against a number of issues raised in the ‘Policy Prospectus’ agreed by Group Leaders on 23 May 2007, against the background of the legislation and the current role and successes of the Neighbourhood Management Unit (NMU).  It also took account of a notice of motion on Community Leadership and Neighbourhood Management, considered by the Executive on 15 January 2008 (Minute 138 of that meeting refers).  The Executive had deferred referral of the motion to Council pending consideration of this review report.

RECOMMENDED:That Council consider the notice of motion on Community Leadership and Neighbourhood Management, together with the decisions of the Executive in respect of the recommendations in the report (see under Part A minutes, Minute 170).¹

REASON:                  In accordance with the procedures set out in Standing Orders.

This report provides information in relation to a motion regarding businesses in City Centre peripheral streets, referred to the Executive by full Council on 4 October 2007, and makes recommendations for the Council, working in partnership with others, to adopt in response to the motion. 

RECOMMENDED:That Council re-consider the motion on businesses in the City Centre peripheral streets that was referred to the Executive on 4 October 2007, together with this report, and agree the following actions (including the actions detailed in paragraph 6 of the report) as their response to the motion:

a)     Working with retailers, traders and other businesses on the peripheral streets to offer advice and encouragement.

b)     Working with Visit York to examine the scope for further publications to attract additional visitors to the peripheral streets.

c)      Examining the scope for extending the range of festivals and market events beyond the main City Centre area.

d)     Developing further initiatives to promote the evening economy, taking account of the role of peripheral streets.

e)     Maintaining progress with developing the City Centre Area Action Plan and ensuring that this is focused on supporting the gateways and fringe streets.

f)        Considering the extent of the footstreets review initiative, through consultation during this review.

g)     Carrying out further work to examine the scope for bringing empty property in peripheral streets back into use.

h)      Officers to examine how action might be taken to stimulate footfall in Micklegate by the use of advertising and / or automated announcements on the Park and Ride buses, both in the short term and in the long term once the new bus fleet comes into use.

REASON:                  In accordance with the procedures set out in Standing Orders and to help shape the effectiveness of future action.

Members considered a report which provided information in relation to a motion referred to the Executive by full Council on 4 October 2007 and made recommendations for the Council to adopt in response to the motion.

The motion, set out in paragraph 2 of the report, expressed concern that some of the peripheral streets in York were not benefiting from the prosperity of the ‘inner core’ of the City Centre and sought the development of an Action Plan to address this issue.  The report highlighted a number of Council initiatives that were already under way to support the contribution of the peripheral streets to the City’s economy.  These included: work arising from the recommendations of the scrutiny review carried out in 2004; the York City Centre Partnership, launched in 2005; an action plan for the evening economy (arising from a report considered by the Executive on 24 July 2007); and development of the City Centre Area Action Plan (AAP) as part of the Local Development Framework. 

Pending adoption of the AAP, which would take account of issues affecting the peripheral streets, the Executive was recommended to endorse a series of proposed actions, detailed in paragraph 6 of the report, to enhance the economic vitality and viability of these streets.

In respect of the comments of the Shadow Executive and the points raised by Cllr Fraser on this item (Minute 167 refers), Members noted that any improvements would have to be funded from existing resources.  However, there were opportunities to access resources via the AAP and the suggestion for stimulating footfall in Micklegate via the Park and Ride buses would be examined further.

RECOMMENDED:That Council re-consider the motion on businesses in the City Centre peripheral streets that was referred to the Executive on 4 October 2007, together with this report, and agree the following actions (including the actions detailed in paragraph 6 of the report) as their response to the motion:¹

a)     Working with retailers, traders and other businesses on the peripheral streets to offer advice and encouragement.

b)     Working with Visit York to examine the scope for further publications to attract additional visitors to the peripheral streets.

c)      Examining the scope for extending the range of festivals and market events beyond the main City Centre area.

d)     Developing further initiatives to promote the evening economy, taking account of the role of peripheral streets.

e)     Maintaining progress with developing the City Centre Area Action Plan and ensuring that this is focused on supporting the gateways and fringe streets.

f)        Considering the extent of the footstreets review initiative, through consultation during this review.

g)     Carrying out further work to examine the scope for bringing empty property in peripheral streets back into use.

h)      Officers to examine how action might be taken to stimulate footfall in Micklegate by the use of advertising and / or automated announcements on the Park and Ride buses, both in the short term and in the long term once the new bus fleet comes into use.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 174.