Agenda and minutes

To receive and note apologies for absence.

Apologies were received and noted from Cllr Ayre, who was substituted by Cllr Fisher and from Cllr Widdowson, who was substituted by Cllr Hollyer.

At this point in the meeting, Members and co-opted members are asked to declare any disclosable pecuniary interest, or other registerable interest, they might have in respect of business on this agenda, if they have not already done so in advance on the Register of Interests. The disclosure must include the nature of the interest.

An interest must also be disclosed in the meeting when it becomes apparent to the member during the meeting.

[Please see the attached sheet for further guidance for Members.]

Members were asked to declare at this point in the meeting any disclosable pecuniary interests or other registrable interests that they might have in the business on the agenda, if they had not already done so in advance on the Register of Interests.

None were declared

At this point in the meeting members of the public who have registered to speak can do so. Members of the public may speak on agenda items or on matters within the remit of the committee.

Please note that our registration deadlines are set as 2 working days before the meeting, in order to facilitate the management of public participation at our meetings. The deadline for registering at this meeting is 5:00pm on Monday, 29 September 2025.

To register to speak please visit www.york.gov.uk/AttendCouncilMeetings to fill in an online registration form. If you have any questions about the registration form or the meeting, please contact Democratic Services. Contact details can be found at the foot of this agenda.

Webcasting of Public Meetings

Please note that, subject to available resources, this meeting will be webcast including any registered public speakers who have given their permission. The meeting can be viewed live and on demand at www.york.gov.uk/webcasts.

It was reported that there had been two registrations to speak at the meeting under the Council’s Public Participation Scheme.

Ben Ffrench spoke on item 5 on behalf of York Green Party, discussing what good communication and engagement from the council should look like. He stated that the communications and engagement strategy was a really important document and it was important to get it right, otherwise the Council would be failing York residents.

Andy D’Agorne spoke on item 4 on behalf of York Green Party, welcoming progress but raising concerns about elements of the plan and impact on completion of transport objectives.

Members will receive an update report on the Castle and Eye project covering the status of funding, delivery approach and preparedness.

The report was presented by the Director of City Development, Head of City Development and Assistant Director of Finance.

The Director of City Development addressed member queries about the scheme, explaining that the present car park was of poor quality in a unique location, and there was also a fundamental need to take traffic out of the core of the city.

Members asked about the revenue implications to the loss of income from parking. The Assistant Director of Finance responded that there were no plans for further borrowing from the council, as funds were already secured, the intention was to seek additional grant funding from West Yorkshire travel.

He advised that two million pounds in revenue was expected from the Castle Car Park this year. There was typically capacity to accommodate this parking in other city car parks, but not all of these car parks were run by the council, consequently the redistributed parking revenue would not necessarily all come back to the authority.

Members asked for assurance that money for the development would be obtainable from West Yorkshire Travel and would not come out of the budget for the York Outer ring road. The Director of City Development confirmed this, stating that there would be no impact on this budget, and the West Yorkshire Transport Fund were positive about the plans.

Members wanted to ensure the earmarked £200,000 was enough to ensure all planned improvements could be completed around the Piccadilly Multi Storey Car Park with regard to personal safety/CCTV. The Director of City Development assured that fully monitored CCTV was included in plans under this budget. Panic buttons would also be considered though were not part of current plans.

Members also raised the issue of Blue Badge spaces in this Car Park, given reports of problems with reliability of the passenger lift with the current carp park design. Members asked whether officers had considered maintenance of blue badge spaces at the Castle Car Park throughout the alterations. The Director of City Development advised there were no current plans to improve the lift but officers could consider this issue from a maintenance perspective. He said that currently continuity of Blue Badge spaces at the Castle Car Park was not being factored in, as there were a number of practical considerations that needed to be accounted for here, but he would look to maintain spaces if possible.

Members expressed concern regarding the potential revenue loss to remove the car park and the Director of City Development responded that while non-council car parks could be used in lieu of the Castle Car Park, the local NCP car parks operated with a substantial amount of contract parking. The Assistant Director of Finance added that historically when the Castle Car Park was full, other council car parks had benefitted from displaced traffic, and when the Rose Theatre occupied the space of the Castle Car Park there had not been a significant revenue loss.

Members asked whether officers had received any soft intelligence about  ...  view the full minutes text for item 27.

Members will consider the draft corporate communications and engagement strategy which outlines how the council will communicate with residents, businesses, partners, community groups and stakeholders.

The report was presented by Head of Communications and Engagement and the Council Leader.

The Head of Communications and Engagement acknowledged the public speaker and explained that the strategy intended to developing a proper map of “seldom heard voices”.

He also discussed using partner advocates or “trusted voices” to help convey messaging and expressed the need to update the social media protocol to reflect that the executive was no longer a coalition.

Members asked about:

·       The social media protocol – specifically the council taking a more proactive approach to setting the record straight and correcting erroneous statements.

The Head of Communications and Engagement explained that dealing with misinformation and disinformation was a complex issue and creating advocates in online spaces could assist in correcting this messaging.

·       Whether the work of neighbourhood caretakers, health trainers and work undertaken by the Social Care teams, had been considered as part of the strategy.

The Head of Communications and Engagement responded that the work of neighbourhood caretakers could set a precedent for other frontline services and while the communications team had told their story, they had also asked the team to tell their own story. If this method proved to be a success, then that could be rolled out to other services.

The Council Leader added that communications team had really changed how the council communicates with residents, and as a result engagement levels had significantly increased. The new strategy, particularly the employment of personal stories, had really been successful.

·       How “trusted voices” are chosen to communicate on the council’s behalf.

The Head of Communications and Engagement clarified that the “trusted voices” were people and groups linked to an objective the team wished to communicate; for example, when reaching out to a community to discuss an issue, the council might look for a key business such as a local hairdresser’s to interact on its behalf.

As to who decided these voices, he said the communications team would make a judgement on how best to reach residents, whether through direct communication from the council or “trusted voices”.

·       Digital exclusion and whether the council could better acknowledge people who are not online.

The Head of Communications and Engagement acknowledged this issue and conceded it was something that could be looked into.

Members suggested that the Joseph Rowntree Foundation had undertaken work in this area and it was suggested the Council could potentially work with them.

The Council Leader also acknowledged this challenge, though she noted citywide magazines like Local Link were open to printing direct council communications, and this magazine had a circulation of 85,000 households.

·       The difference between communicating things people need to know and communicating things the council would like them to know.

The Head of Communications and Engagement assured that “bad” news was not being buried and giving residents information on local services was at the core of their work. He explained that there were limits to the extent the council could put certain information through official digital channels without impacting the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 28.

[Report to follow.]

The report was presented by the Head of Democratic Services and the Chair of the Task and Finish Group for the Boundary Commission Review on Council Size (Cllr Merrett).

The Task and Finish Group Chair explained that the Group met on four occasions and alongside its members, in attendance at all meetings, was a representative of the Boundary Commission.  The Task and Finish Group was also supported in its work by Officers within the Council, including the Council’s Monitoring Officer, the Head of Democratic Services, the Electoral Services Manager and the Head of Business Intelligence. Through these discussions the Council’s submission to the Boundary Commission was produced.

The Task and Finish Group Chair thanked officers for their work and asked that formal thanks be passed on to Tom Rutherford of the Boundary Commission, who had assisted the group.

He advised that the group had agreed to recommend that the council should retain an odd number of members, to avoid politicisation of the Lord Mayor’s role in the event of a tied vote. This followed the convention observed in prior submissions to the Boundary Commission.

He noted that consensus had not been reached between political groups regarding council numbers, and that therefore ultimately each group had put forward their own suggestion.

The Head of Democratic Services added that the Boundary Commission were very clear on what they expected from the report, and that their guidance had been followed in writing the report.

She explained that in addition to building a factual profile of York, the report also discussed governance arrangements and scrutiny functions in the city.

She reiterated that the task and finish group had hoped to work towards a consensual position, which had ultimately not been achieved and the second part of the report was therefore composed of four separate submissions from the three different political groups and one independent councillor.

The committee noted several minor points of amendment concerning terminology, clarification and accuracy. The Head of Democratic Services acknowledged these.

The Head of Democratic Services explained that, if approved by the committee, this submission would be presented to Full Council at an extraordinary meeting on Thursday, 16 October, before being submitted to the Boundary Commission on Friday, 17 October. The Boundary Commission would then look to begin public consultation on Tuesday, 25 November. She clarified that this did not need to go to the Executive for approval.

Subject to the minor corrections identified during the meeting, after a show of hands it was

Resolved:  That the Committee note and endorse the Report, with unanimous approval.

Reason:     In order that the Report may be presented to Full Council and then submitted to the Boundary Commission.