Agenda and minutes

At this point, Members are asked to declare:

·        any personal interests not included on the Register of Interests

·        any prejudicial interests or

·        any disclosable pecuniary interests

which they may have in respect of business on this agenda.

Members were invited to declare at this point in the meeting any personal interests not included on the Register of Interests, any prejudicial interests or any disclosable pecuniary interests they might have in the business on the agenda.

The following prejudicial and pecuniary interests were declared.  The Members in question left the meeting during consideration of the items in which they had an interest and took no part in the debate or decisions thereon.

To approve and sign the minutes of the Council meeting held on 21 October 2021.

Resolved:  That the minutes of Council meeting held on 21 October be approved, and signed by the Chair as a correct record.

To consider any announcements made by the Lord Mayor in respect of Civic business.

The Lord Mayor announced the death of former Councillor Roger Farringdon on 8 November 2021, at the age of 78.  He invited Members to observe a minute’s silence in memory of Roger’s life and his contribution to the city.

The Lord Mayor went on to announce:

·        The cancellation of the Christmas Cheer event due to the pandemic; it would be replaced this year by the delivery of hampers to successful applicants over the age of 65, funded partly from the proceeds of the Barbican carol concert;

·        The cancellation of Christmas Eve carols on the steps of the Mansion House, again due to the spread of the virus;

·        Recent visits to York by a delegation from Lviv in Ukraine and a group from the German rail industry.

At this point in the meeting, any member of the public who has registered to address the Council, or to ask a Member of the Council a question, on a matter directly relevant to the business of the Council or the City, may do so.  The deadline for registering is 5:00pm on Tuesday, 14 December 2021.

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 public meeting will be webcast including any registered public speakers who have given their permission.  The remote public meeting can be viewed live and on demand at

www.york.gov.uk/webcasts.

During coronavirus, we've made some changes to how we're running council meetings.  See our coronavirus updates at www.york.gov.uk/COVIDDemocracy for more information on meetings and decisions.

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

Ian Craven spoke on Haxby Rail Station, as a matter relevant to the City.  On behalf of Haxby Town Council, he objected to proposals to locate the new station on Towthorpe Road site and suggested the decision on this be deferred to allow a detailed investigation to take place.

Ruth Pearson also spoke on Haxby Rail Station.  Although a member of Haxby Town Council, she expressed her personal views in support of Towthorpe Road as the best site for the station.

Evie Duarte, the regional manager for IDAS in North Yorkshire, spoke in support of Motion (i) at Agenda Item 8 (End Violence Against Women and Girls), emphasising the need to stop victim blaming and challenge gender stereotypes.

Flick Williams also spoke on Motion (i), in relation to the council’s application for White Ribbon status.  She queried what this would mean in practical terms and for disabled people, given the recent decision to exclude Blue Badge Holders from the city centre.

David Harbourne spoke on Agenda Item 11 (Report of the Chair of CCSMC), with reference to the calling-in of the Executive decisions on Blue Badge access.  He said that those decisions should be set aside pending a public inquiry, as required by law.

To consider any petitions received from Members in accordance with Standing Order No.15.  No notice of petitions has been received.

It was reported that no petitions had been received under Standing Order 15.

To receive and consider a written report from the Leader and ask questions on the work of the Executive, and to consider the Executive recommendations for approval as set out below:

A – Executive Leader’s Report

A written report was received from the Executive Leader, Cllr Aspden, on the work of the Executive.

Members were then invited to question the Leader on his report.  Questions were received from the floor from the following Members in relation to the subjects listed, and replied to as indicated:

Integrated Rail Plan, GBR and Haxby Station

From Cllr Douglas: Are the comments made by the public speaker regarding lack of consultation on Haxby Station true?

Response: The issue of Haxby Station has been discussed for decades and the site location has been the subject of briefings and consultation.  We took the opportunity to purchase land to enable us to proceed at pace.  If the programme slips we risk losing the opportunity to obtain new stations funding.  The other site suggested would bring a wider raft of disbenefits, and opposition from nearby householders. There is more consultation to come with the local community and Haxby Town Council.

[supplementary: Were the speaker’s comments true?]

Response: There have been numerous stages of consultation over many years, including on this site, and we have committed to further consultation around this site.  If you are in favour of the new station, then support us to get it done.

From Cllr Fenton: Is the Leader concerned about the government’s failure to live up to its promises to level up as part of its rail investment plans?

Response: The government’s rail review was not good news for Yorkshire and the North, and the more opportunities we get to make that point the better.  We have undertaken to work with all councils and leaders in Yorkshire to tell the government what we think it should do with the investment, but this in no way makes up for the benefits that many cities were told they would get from Northern Powerhouse Rail.

Christmas Holiday Activities / general

From Cllr Webb: At the last meeting, Council approved a motion supporting the right to food.  Which member of the Executive has been selected as the Right to Food Champion, and why?

Response: I will need to discuss this amongst my colleagues.  I’m happy to ensure that a report is brought forward on this and I will write to you.

[Supplementary: Is it because you don’t care, or can’t find someone who is up to the task?]

Response: No.  I will make sure a report is brought forward, and you will receive a reply.

Devolution in York and North Yorkshire

From Cllr Wann: Once the Levelling Up White Paper has been published, what do you think the next steps are likely to be in the devolution process for York and North Yorkshire?

Response: All councils are trying to understand what is on offer.  I want to be able to compare the deal for a mayoral combined authority against what we might get in any of the other arrangements.  I hope we will get more detail when the White Paper is published, but there’s no reason why  ...  view the full minutes text for item 46.

To receive and consider a written report from the Deputy Leader and, to question the Deputy Leader thereon.

A written report was received from the Deputy Leader, Cllr D’Agorne.

Members were then invited to question the Deputy Leader on his report.  Questions were received from the floor from the following Members in relation to the subjects listed, and replied to as indicated:

Active Travel Programme

From Cllr Crawshaw: Two years ago, in December 2019, Council approved a motion to remove non-essential vehicles from the city centre.  What have you done about that and where are you up to?

Response: Immediately after that, floods affected the city centre and lockdown followed soon after, which had a significant effect on the council’s capacity.  We quickly moved to a situation where we were responding to the needs of a city coming out of lockdown, and highways officers were involved in that.  Several decisions were made in the interim in response to the Active Travel fund, including improvements for pedestrians and cyclists.  The main means for delivering change will be through the development of a new Local Transport Plan, scheduled for the near future, alongside carbon reduction and the economic strategy.

[supplementary from Cllr Lomas: Are you saying you’ve only succeeded in removing essential vehicles from the city centre?]

Response: You have made your mind up, so I’ll leave you to draw your own conclusions.

From Cllr Mason: Can you give an update on the consultation you’ve been doing with Members as the Active Travel schemes in wards progress?

Response: The scheme programme can now move forward, with project officers in post.  I have asked for ward members to be briefed from the outset to help design leads take account of local sensitivities and I hope to see schemes progressing quickly in the coming year.

Local Transport Plan

From Cllr Douglas: The draft LTP has been due since May 2021 and there is no written report scheduled for next week’s Scrutiny meeting.  Where is it up to?

Response: We’ve been having regular cross-party briefings on the progress of the LTP4.  As part of government’s decarbonisation strategy coming forward in February, there will be a requirement for local authorities to have an LTP and this may need to be a statutory document with an evidence base to access Local transport funding.  As I said in my report, the LTP will work alongside the Carbon Reduction and Economic Recovery strategies.

Bootham Park

From Cllr Hollyer: Can you provide an update on work to improve the cycling infrastructure at the former Bootham Park Hospital site?

Response: Decisions were made by Executive [on 9 December] ensuring continued public access to the site.  In the short term, while work is taking place, there will be a safe means of access for cyclists through the gates, which will be linked to a new segregated cycle route.  Once the work is complete, there will be a full cycle route from the hospital to the Railway Station, via Scarborough Bridge.

To consider the following Motions on Notice under Standing Order 22:

Motions submitted for consideration directly by Council, in accordance with Standing Order 22.1

(i)           From Cllr Runciman

End Violence Against Women and Girls

“This Council notes:

·         Its commitment to making York a safe place for everyone.

·         Work carried out by IDAS (Independent Domestic Abuse Services) and regional organisations and charities supporting women who have experienced abuse or harassment.

·         That across the UK harassment and violence towards women and girls is endemic. 

·         When combining the data from the region's four police forces, it shows an average of 10 women are sexually assaulted every day in Yorkshire.

·         Over the last 24 months in York there have been 878 sexual offences and 2,278 stalking and harassment offences reported. 3,117 domestic abuse crimes were reported in York between January 2019 and June 2021 (according to North Yorkshire Police data). Due to underreporting the real extent of the committed offences is likely to be much higher.

·         Domestic abuse support referrals in York and North Yorkshire have risen significantly – with the number of requests for help increasing by 80 per cent. Number of victims seeking help from community-based support services rising by about 4,000 people since 2019.

·         Studies have shown that the intersectional nature of discrimination means that women with additional protected characteristics, such as those who are from Black, Asian or Ethnic Minority communities, disabled or LGBT+, are even more likely to experience discrimination, harassment, and abuse.

Council welcomes:

·         The introduction of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 and the new statutory responsibilities for local authorities under the Act, however recognises that it does not provide equal protection for migrant women and fails to allocate comprehensive funding to local authorities and organisations.

·         The establishment of a multi-agency Domestic Abuse Local Partnership Board to provide strategic leadership and co-ordination of the domestic abuse work across York.

Council believes:

• Victim-blaming narratives and misogyny must be challenged at all levels of society wherever encountered.

·         That we must do all we can as a Council and representatives in our communities to champion the rights of women and girls and to tackle violence against them. Raising awareness plays a huge part in changing the cultural and social norms which are recognised as being highly influential in shaping individual behaviour, including the use of violence.

Consequently, Council resolves to:

1)   Endorse the Council’s application to become a White Ribbon Accredited local authority.

2)   Encourage all Councillors to take the White Ribbon pledge, never to take part in, condone or stay silent about violence against women.

3)   Arrange awareness training around violence against women and girls and misogyny.

4)   Support the summit regarding violence against women and girls with key city and regional representatives set to be held early next year and support the implementation of the forthcoming North Yorkshire Police strategy to help make York a safer place for women and girls.

5)   Encourage schools, academies and colleges to develop and implement policies on tackling physical, mental or emotional harassment  ...  view the full agenda text for item 48.

[At 19:54 the meeting was adjourned and the order of business was varied to bring forward Motion (iii).  The meeting resumed at 20:06 with the Deputy Lord Mayor, Cllr Looker, in the Chair.]

(i)           Houses in Multiple Occupation

Cllr Warters sought consent to alter his motion to incorporate the amendment submitted by Cllr Pavlovic.

Council having granted consent, the altered motion was moved by Cllr Warters and seconded by Cllr Pavlovic, as follows:

“Council notes that following the introduction of the new use class of C4 ‘Houses in Multiple Occupation’ in April 2010 and a requirement for planning permission to be sought for a change from a C3 (single household dwelling house) and the subsequent change by the incoming Conservative/Lib Dem coalition government to make this change of use ‘permitted development’ City of York Council introduced an Article 4 Direction to exert a tighter control on such HMO formation and require planning permission to be sought for C3 to C4 conversion.

Council further notes that single working people and students are often unable to afford the costly alternatives to HMO accommodation, while there is insufficient on-campus accommodation to meet student demand.

The Article 4 Direction was introduced in York in April 2012 and the main tool for controlling the distribution of HMOs were the threshold limits of 20% C4 HMOs at a ‘Neighbourhood Level’ and 10% at a ‘Street Level’.

Council believes that in the light of the large number of off campus purpose built student accommodation flats approved and built in recent years, the large number recently approved awaiting construction and ongoing applications for such developments that the time has come to revisit the ‘Controlling the Concentration of Houses in Multiple Occupation’ Supplementary Planning Document 2012 (revised 2014) with a view to reducing the acceptable threshold levels of HMOs in residential streets.

Council understands from ongoing planning applications that the pressure on family homes in residential areas near the two Universities for conversion to C4 HMOs is not abating as could be reasonably thought after all the purpose built Student accommodation approvals and completions.

Council resolves therefore in the interests of protecting residential family homes for family use to request Executive:

·        initiates without delay a review of the HMO Supplementary Planning Document with a view to halving the acceptable percentage thresholds of HMOs across the Article 4 Direction area, whilst taking into account alternative housing provision available, and being mindful of the need to provide suitable accommodation for vulnerable residents;

·        In the interests of transparency, commits council officers to updating concentrations of HMOs across the Article 4 Direction area annually, at residential and street levels, by providing up todate data on both the council website and the York Open Data website.”

Cllr Craghill then moved, and Cllr Fenton seconded, an amendment to the above motion, as follows:

“In the fourth paragraph:

-      delete ‘the time has come to revisit’

-      delete all after ‘Supplementary Planning Document 2012 (revised 2014)’ and insert: ‘should be kept under review’.

In  ...  view the full minutes text for item 48.

To question the Leader and/or Executive Members in respect of any matter within their portfolio responsibility, in accordance with Standing Order 20.

Question to Cllr D’Agorne, Executive Member for Transport

From Cllr Kilbane: You recently attended a talk by the Deputy Mayor of Ghent on their circulation plan, which is their local transport plan.  Would a similar plan work in York and would you be in favour of such a plan?

Response: I would certainly want to consider how it would work in York.  A much more detailed study would be needed.

Question to Cllr Smalley, Executive Member for Culture, Leisure & Communities

From Cllr Crawshaw: As Chair of the Human Rights & Equalities Board, you knowingly voted with Executive to discriminate against disabled people by removing their right to access the city using a Blue Badge, contrary to a report commissioned by the Board.  Can you explain what York’s status as a Human Rights City means to you?

Response: It means a lot to me.  I will get back to you in writing with a fuller response.

[supplementary: The Human Rights City Network released a statement to say the decision was ‘a defining moment for York as a Human Rights City’ and they had serious concerns about the Board.  How do you respond to that?  For transparency, I will add that my mother is a member of the Network’s Steering Group]

Response: My position is clear.  The Board has been reviewing its membership, terms of reference and work plan and we have agreed to have a meeting in the new year about its future relationship with the Network.  I will get back to you in writing.

To receive a written report from the Executive Member for Housing and Safer Neighbourhoods, and to question the Executive Member thereon, in accordance with Standing Order 19.

A written report was received from Cllr Craghill, the Executive Member for Housing & Safer Neighbourhoods.

To receive a report from Councillor Crawshaw, Chair of the Customer & Corporate Services Scrutiny Management Committee, on the work of the Committee.

A written report was received from Cllr Crawshaw, Chair of the Customer & Corporate Services Scrutiny Committee, on the work of scrutiny.

To consider the recommendations for approval set out below:

When the guillotine fell, the following recommendations contained in Minute 79 of the Licensing & Regulatory Committee meeting held on 9 November 2021 were deemed moved and seconded:

“That:

i.             It be recommended to Council that the Statement of Licensing Policy be adopted.

ii.            Authorisation be given to officers to publish the Local Area Profile.

Reason: To meet the legislative requirements of the Gambling Act 2005.”

Cllr Melly raised concerns about the recommendations and proposed that the vote be deferred. 

Cllr Orrell then proposed an addition to the recommendations, as follows:

“(iii)    [That] the Statement of Licensing Policy be received at the next meeting of the Licensing & Regulatory Committee.”

In order to resolve the matter, the Chair ruled that a vote be taken without debate on each of the above proposals.

A named vote was taken on the proposal to defer, with the following result:

The proposal to defer was therefore declared LOST.

A named vote was then taken on the recommendations, including the additional recommendation proposed by Cllr Orrell, with the following result:

The recommendations were therefore declared CARRIED, and it was

Resolved:  That the Chief Operating Officer be recommended to approve the above recommendations, including the additional recommendation.¹