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 any of the business on the agenda.  The following interests were declared:

• Cllr Potter – a personal, non prejudicial interest in Executive agenda item 6 (Police and Community Safety Reform), as a member of the Police Authority.
• Cllr Horton – a personal and prejudicial interest in Executive agenda item 7 (Relocation of Peaseholme Centre – Site Shortlist), as a potential member of the Planning Committee that would consider the subsequent planning application for the chosen site, and a personal and prejudicial interest in Executive agenda item 9 (York Racecourse Traffic Management), as a recipient of complimentary race tickets.
• Cllrs Merrett and Simpson-Laing – personal and prejudicial interests in Executive agenda item 7, as potential members of the Planning Committee that would consider the subsequent planning application for the chosen site.
• Cllr Evans – a personal and prejudical interest in Executive agenda item 8 (York Museums Trust Funding), as an employee of York Museums Trust.
• Cllr King – a personal and prejudicial interest in Executive agenda item 9, as a recipient of complimentary race tickets.

Those Members who had declared prejudicial interests left the room during consideration of the relevant items and took no part in the discussions or decisions thereon.  Cllr Merrett vacated the Chair during consideration of Executive agenda item 7, and Cllr Potter took the Chair for that item.

With regard to Executive agenda item 10 (5 Kings Square and 2-3 Kings Court), it was agreed that there would be no discussion of the exempt information contained in the annex to the report and therefore no need for a resolution to exclude the press and public.

To approve and sign the minutes of the Shadow Executive meeting held on 10 May 2006.

RESOLVED:             That the minutes of the meeting of the Shadow Executive held on 10 May 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 Monday 22^nd May, 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.

The Shadow Executive made the following comments on the Minutes at page 15 of the papers circulated for the Executive meeting to be held on 30 May 2006:

With reference to Minute 223 (Corporate Strategy and Council Plan), the Shadow Executive would like to know when this item will be brought back to the Executive.

The Shadow Executive made the following comments on the Forward Plan at page 5 of the papers circulated for the Executive meeting to be held on 30 May 2006:

The Shadow Executive:

• Is extremely concerned that the report on the Bus Information Replacement Service has been deferred, given that the service is due for closure on 31^st May and that there are clearly significant concerns about some of the services which it provides, besides responses to telephone enquiries.  The Shadow Executive will need assurances that these issues will be addressed and the public will need to be informed about service provision.
• May require Officer attendance at the relevant Shadow Executive meeting/s in respect of the following items (current Executive dates in brackets):
  • Corporate Asset Management Plan (13/6)
  • Revised Joint Municipal Waste Strategy (13/6)
  • Consideration of Waste PFI Outline Business Case (27/6)
  • Update on York’s first and second LPSAs (27/6)
  • Revised Joint Municipal Waste Strategy Report (27/6)
  • York Central (27/6)

The Shadow Executive considered a report which was listed as item 6 on the agenda for the Executive meeting on 30 May, at page 7. The report provided an update on emerging issues in respect of police and community safety reform, sought policy guidance on these and considered the implications for the Council and the Local Strategic Partnership (LSP).

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

The Shadow Executive:

• Given the change of Home Secretary and the indications that the Government may be reconsidering its approach, re-iterates its original position that a “federation” arrangement would be preferable and otherwise would continue its support for a merger with West Yorkshire police rather than a combined Yorkshire force.
• Considers that York and Selby should continue to have separate Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships (CDRPs), given the disparate nature of the two areas and their political structures.
• Notes that there will need to be some form of strategic co-ordination between the LSP and the police BCU, assuming that there is to be no reconfiguration of the BCUs.
• Supports the proposals in the Police and Justice Bill to improve the public accountability of CDRPs – this particularly needs to be addressed in York, where the workings of the CDRP are not very transparent and where accountability could be improved by making the meetings more public.
• Feels that there should be a wider consultation on this set of proposals than the suggested sample of 2,000 and hopes that the City of York Council will ensure that this happens in its own area.
• Notes the comments regarding the work of the JAGs, of which it is very supportive but recognises that it is early days yet and there are particular issues for the Council, in terms of providing the necessary resourcing to support delivery of the JAG objectives in each ward area, which have not yet been resolved.
• Notes the implications of the government’s proposed Police Bill with regard to Scrutiny and the need for the Council to establish a separate Community Safety Scrutiny Board, which will require more resources for the Scrutiny Unit, given that it is already overstretched.
• Welcomes the broadening of the definitions of anti-social behaviour and proposes that the Executive request a further report from Officers on how the Council should address and resource this.

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 30 May, at page 23.  The report presented a shortlist of potential sites for relocation of the Peaseholme Centre and sought approval to carry out consultation with local residents, businesses and community groups around the shortlisted sites.

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

The Shadow Executive:

• Considers it essential that the Peasholme Centre be re-provided, and upgraded in the process.
• Considers that reprovision of the Centre on the Hungate redevelopment site should not be ruled out and would like to see more information addressing that possibility.
• Considers that the site at 17-21 Piccadilly should not be ruled out either.
• Notes that there are still errors in the amended Annex 1 to the report regarding the status of some of the sites – for example Parkside is known to be empty – so even the revised annex is not as accurate as it should be.

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 30 May, at page 33.  The report asked the Executive to agree core funding for the York Museums Trust for the period 2008-2013 and to release £50k of capital funding to the Trust for a scheme to refurbish Kirkgate at the Castle Museum.

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

The Shadow Executive acknowledges the ambitious nature of the museums’ programme and the vision of the York Museums Trust, but has concerns about the potential risks of the programme, and queries whether it has been independently evaluated to ensure that the risks are properly covered, including the need to have a fall back position if not all of the grants materialise.

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 30 May, at page 51.  The report presented the results of consultation on Traffic Regulation Orders aimed at tackling traffic management issues arising during race meetings and asked the Executive to consider a traffic management plan put forward by the York Race Committee.

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

The Shadow Executive has a number of concerns about these proposals, and in particular:

• Is unclear as to whether the scheme will effectively push most racegoers to use the south car park, rather than car park A as is intended.
• Is concerned about what it understands to be a linked proposal to introduce a £5 charge – this is likely to displace car parking off the racecourse and into then side roads at South Bank, Lower Bishopthorpe Road and Tadcaster Road, especially if there is no exclusion zone for South Bank – this should be reinstated to protect the area.
• Notes that there is no information to justify the categorisation of races or to pick up similar high traffic events such as the caravan show – should these not be treated in a similar way to the race events?
• Considers that if a “two tier” approach is taken this could lead to confusion – adequate public information will be required.
• Considers that the proposals of the York Race Committee are unclear – at paragraph 3.3 on page 69 of the papers (Annex C), there is a reference to car park B.  Is this the Sim Balk Lane car park, or a different one? It is not shown on the map.
• Questions what will happen if the York Race Committee does not agree to pay the costs of the proposals.

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 10 on the agenda for the Executive meeting on 30 May, at page 89.  The report sought approval to sell the Council’s freehold interest in the above property to the existing lessees.

Having discussed the issues set out in the report, the Shadow Executive agreed to note the report.

RESOLVED:             That the item not be called in.

To consider a report back on the GF 400 celebrations that took place in York in November 2005.

Members considered a report back on the GF 400 celebrations that had taken place in York in November 2005.  The report had been prepared at their request by the Assistant Director (Lifelong Learning and Culture).

Members thanked the Assistant Director for the report but noted that it did not address all their questions about the events and that further information would therefore be needed to enable them to discuss the matter fully.

RESOLVED:That Members provide the Assistant Director with further clarification on the questions that they wish the report to address and that a further report, addressing these issues, then be provided for consideration at a future meeting.