Agenda and minutes

At this point, Members are asked to declare any personal or prejudicial interests 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.

Councillor Fraser declared personal non-prejudicial interests in Executive item 6 (Extending Cardboard Recycling Collections and Changes to Winter Refuse Collection Arrangements), as a retired member of the Transport and General Workers’ Union (TGWU) and Unison, and in Executive item 10 (Proposals for Staff Compensation), as a retired member of Unison.

Councillor Merrett declared a personal non-prejudicial interest in Executive item 9 (Lendal Bridge Sub-Station Secure Cycle Park Feasibility Study Outcome) as an honorary member of the Cyclists’ Touring Club (CTC) and a member of Cycling England.

Councillor King declared a personal prejudicial interest in Executive item 10 (Proposals for Staff Compensation) as it involved his wife and daughter, left the room and took no part in the discussion or decision thereon.

To approve and sign the minutes of the Shadow Executive meeting held on 18 October 2006.

RESOLVED:             That the minutes of the meeting of the Shadow Executive held on 18 October 2006 be approved and signed by the Chair as a correct record.

At this point in the meeting members of the public who have registered their wish to speak regarding an item on the agenda or an issue within the Shadow Executive’s remit can do so. The deadline for registering is Tuesday 31 October 2006, at 10.00 am.

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

RESOLVED:             That the press and public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of Annex B to agenda item 9 (Lendal Bridge Sub-Station Secure Cycle Park Feasibility Study Outcome) (minute 104 refers) and Annex A to agenda item 10 (Proposals for Staff Compensation) (minute 105 refers), on the grounds that they contained information relating to the financial or business affairs of particular persons, which was classed as exempt under Paragraph 3 of Schedule 12A to Section 100A of the Local Government Act 1972, as amended by the Local Government (Access to information) (Variation) Order 2006.

The Shadow Executive made the following comments on the Executive Minutes at page 1 of the papers circulated for the Executive meeting to be held on 7 November 2006, specifically with regards to minute 100 (Urgent Business – Consultation on the Policy Framework for New Nuclear Build):

The Shadow Executive:

·  Record their concern that an item that the last meeting of Full Council discussed and for which the deadline was known, appeared as an urgent item when it could have gone on the agenda and that the Shadow Executive were not told about this or the report made available to them for consideration at their meeting.

·  Note that this is an area of public interest and that proper notice should have been given to the public that the item would be considered.

·  Ask the Chief Executive to ensure that this does not happen again.

To consider the items on the agenda for the Executive meeting to be held on 7 November 2006, and to take a decision on whether to call-in any of these items.

Please note that the reports relating to these items will be published on the Council’s website on 27 October 2006. The website address is www.york.gov.uk  Copies of the Executive agenda and reports are also available for viewing at public libraries in York and can be obtained by telephoning Democracy Support Group on York (01904) 551088.

The Shadow Executive made the following comments on the Forward Plan at page 9 of the papers circulated for the Executive meeting to be held on 7 November 2006:

The Shadow Executive:

·  May require Officer attendance at the relevant Shadow Executive meeting/s in respect of the following items (current Executive dates in brackets):

o Leisure Facilities Strategy (21/11)

oStreet Scene (21/11)

oStrategic Procurement Programme (21/11)

oThin Client Competition Strategy (21/11)

oBudget Pressures – Adult Social Services (21/11)

oChild Protection Policy (5/12)

oFuture of Archives (5/12)

oCorporate Asset Management Plan (5/12)

o Revised Waste Strategy (5/12)

The Shadow Executive considered a report which was listed as item 6 on the agenda for the Executive meeting on 7 November, at page 11.  The report, requested by Members at the Executive meeting on 24 October, considered how cardboard recycling services could be delivered to the remaining 40,000 residents who were able to use this service if provided, and recommended changes to the current domestic refuse collection arrangements between 1 December 2006 and 31 March 2007.

Having discussed the issues set out in the report and questioned officers present at the meeting, the following comments were agreed:

The Shadow Executive:

·  Are supportive of the need to roll out the cardboard collection and note that this should have been done when the alternating collection cycle started.

·  Are concerned at the rushed proposals and whether the Council could provide future funding to maintain the service after the end of the financial year.

·  Are also concerned as to whether the proposals represent value for money, in terms of process.

·  Are very concerned that the proposals do not address the needs and wishes of people in terraced and other areas without recycling collections, and that an already inequitable two tier system is being widened.

·  Express the view that it is time to adopt a strategic approach to recycling, as opposed to piecemeal, inefficient and panicked decisions, with these proposals “clearly representing a cynical approach linked to the forthcoming elections”.

·  Highlight the inconsistency of service over time, with householders experiencing three different systems in two years and currently expecting the imminent reversion to weekly refuse collections over the winter on the basis of the last leaflet issued by the Council, not what is now proposed.

RESOLVED:(i) That the Executive be asked to take the above comments into account when considering this item.

(ii)               That the item not be called in.

The Shadow Executive considered a report which was listed as item 7 on the agenda for the Executive meeting on 7 November, at page 23.  The report set out officers’ comments in relation to the scrutiny recommendations presented to the Executive on 25 July 2006, with alternative proposals where appropriate, to ensure that financial controls and reporting procedures were in place to enable the procurement of energy for street lighting to progress without delay.

Having discussed the issues set out in the report, the following comments were agreed:

The Shadow Executive:

·   Are broadly supportive of the Scrutiny body’s conclusions and are concerned at the officer recommendations, which suggest a hostile attitude to the sustainability objectives which enjoy cross-party support, notably with regards to recommendation 3 where the first recommendation destroys the objective of the whole scrutiny exercise.

·  Express the view that responsibility for recommendations 9, 10 and 11 should rest with the Executive Member, not the Energy Champion.

RESOLVED:(i) That the Executive be asked to take the above comments into account when considering this item.

(ii)                        That the item not be called in.

The Shadow Executive considered a report which was listed as item 8 on the agenda for the Executive meeting on 7 November, at page 33.  The report asked the Executive to consider the final recommendations of the Scrutiny Sub-Committee that reviewed the topic ‘Reducing Carbon Emissions from York’s Public and Private Sector Housing’.

Having discussed the issues set out in the report, the following comments were agreed:

The Shadow Executive:

·  Note with concern that the presentation of the report remains over complex and long, using an unsustainable amount of paper.

·  Are supportive of the main thrust of the Scrutiny body’s conclusions but, with regards to recommendation 2, would advocate the same approach adopted by the Local Development Framework Working Group that percentage targets are insufficient on their own and that separate requirements are needed to optimise building roofscapes for solar gain and generation purposes, otherwise well insulated and ventilated large scale developments will have little target  at all.

·  With regards to the penultimate bullet point in paragraph 2 of the covering report, note that two issues have been confused, with the Council’s housing stock being above average in the Standard Assessment Procedure (SAP) rating but the city having the lowest grant take up in the region.

RESOLVED:(i) That the Executive be asked to take the above comments into account when considering this item.

(ii)                        That the item not be called in.

The Shadow Executive considered a report which was listed as item 9 on the agenda for the Executive meeting on 7 November, at page 143.  The report presented the outcome of the study into whether the former Lendal Bridge Sub-Station was suitable to be converted into a secure cycle parking facility, together with the further information requested by the Executive on 24 October, and detailed the options available in relation to the building.

Having discussed the issues set out in the report, the following comments were agreed:

The Shadow Executive:

·  Continue to question officer assumptions in terms of the potential valuation of the site and cost of conversion, and reiterate most of the points made at the last Shadow Executive meeting in terms of the sites potential for cycle parking / ancillary uses.

·  Note the clear interest of the cycling sector (and the upstairs tenant) evidenced at the site visit and express the view that the site may well be viable for the provision of a low cost cycle usage based facility.

·  Given the clear issues in terms of benefits for cycling and for meeting the objectives of the Community Strategy, the Local Transport Plan 2 and, with regards to secure cycle parking, the objectives of the Safer York Partnership, urge the Executive to support either Option C or Option E, or a combination thereof, with some flexibility as to how much matching grant is achievable, plus more reasonable timescales than the few days so far to put forward a practical proposal.

RESOLVED:(i) That the Executive be asked to take the above comments into account when considering this item.

(ii)That the item be called in, unless the Executive support a more flexible approach to ascertaining the potential for cycling usage as indicated in the last bullet point above.

The Shadow Executive considered a report which was listed as item 10 on the agenda for the Executive meeting on 7 November, at page 165.  The report gave an update on the Council’s position in relation to offers of compensation to employees.

Having discussed the issues set out in the report, the following comments were agreed:

The Shadow Executive:

·  Note with concern that the report contains no information on the offer involved or how well recompensed those affected will be, to enable an informed decision to be made.

RESOLVED:(i) That the Executive be asked to take the above comments into account when considering this item.

(ii)                        That the item not be called in.