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 personal interests were declared:

To approve and sign the minutes of the last Ordinary meeting of Council held on 27 March and the Annual Meeting of Council held on 20 May 2014.

Resolved:  That the minutes of the last Ordinary meeting of Council on 27 March 2014 and the minutes of the Annual Council meeting held on 20 May 2014 be approved and signed by the Chair as correct records.

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

The Lord Mayor confirmed that whilst there were no specific items of civic business, the Group Leaders wished to individually speak to commemorate the anniversary of World War 1.

Cllrs Steward, Aspden and D’Agorne all spoke to mark the 100^th anniversary since the start of World War 1. This was followed by one minute’s silence.

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 Wednesday 16 July 2014.

To register to speak please contact the Democracy Officer for the meeting, on the details at the foot of the agenda.

WEBCASTING NOTICE

Please note: this meeting may be filmed for live or subsequent broadcast via the internet - at the start of the meeting the Deputy Lord Mayor will confirm if all or part of the meeting is being filmed.

You should be aware that the Council is a Data Controller under the Data Protection Act. Data collected during this webcast will be retained in accordance with the Council’s published policy.

Public seating areas will not be filmed by the Council.

The Lord Mayor announced that twelve members of the public had registered to speak at the meeting. She confirmed that, in view of the number of petitions to be presented and the large agenda, she had used her discretion to allow two additional speakers at the meeting.

Tobie Abel spoke in support of a petition, to be presented later in the evening by Cllr Reid, from residents of Newborough Street asking the Council to consider making the street a Resident’s Parking zone. He referred to the difficulties resident’s of Newborough Street encountered from visitors, to the adjacent York Hospital and Bootham Crescent Football Ground, parking outside their homes. He asked Members to support their request.

Tony Fisher, spoke in support of a petition to be presented by Cllr Runciman, later in the meeting, relating to the allocation of land to the east of Strensall Road, Earswick in the draft Local Plan. He referred to the proposed scale of the development and to its effect on the village’s infrastructure and asked, on behalf of residents, for the site to be removed from the Local Plan.

John Williams, also spoke in support of a petition to be presented later in the meeting by Cllr Doughty, on behalf of Earswick residents, also opposed to plans to build houses on the Strensall Road site in Earswick. He reiterated the effects this scale of development would have on local roads and services pointing out that the sites addition to the Plan was contrary to local resident’s wishes. Residents felt that resources should be targeted at brown field sites.

Gwen Swinburn spoke in respect of a recent Internal Audit Report on democratic governance considered by the Audit and Governance Committee. She highlighted that consideration had been given to a cover report rather than the full document and asked if future reports could be considered in full by the Committee, in the interests of transparency.

Peter Richardson, also spoke in relation to the Local Plan and proposals for housing developments in Haxby and Elvington. He pointed out that local infrastructure could not support large housing developments, particularly the drainage system and the outer ring road. He also asked if the fines imposed during the Lendal Bridge trial could be refunded from monies no longer paid by the authority to the North Yorkshire Police.

Geoff Beacon also spoke in relation to housing development, particularly to support the Council in building on green belt land in an effort to reduce house prices. He asked Members to consider the use of Walter Segal construction methods to build lightweight housing or designs based on properties available in holiday villages resulting in large savings in construction costs.

Barrie Stephenson spoke in support of Restore (York) Ltd and Cllr Lookers’ motion, to be considered later in the meeting, regarding the provision of safe homes for vulnerable people. He explained that Restore provided properties in the York area, gave help and professional support to vulnerable people and provided volunteers who sought  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16.

To consider any petitions received from Members in accordance with Standing Order No.7.  To date, notice has been received of five petitions to be presented by:

i)             Cllr Merrett on behalf of local residents, which is to be debated, following receipt of over 1,000 signatures, in accordance with the Council’s petitions scheme:

Frack-Free York Petition to City of York Council – signed by 863 people plus 750 online signatories

The signatories “petition the Council to:

Not permit any hydraulic fracturing (fracking) or coal seam gas extraction from within or underneath the York area. We the undersigned are completely against the exploitation of any ‘unconventional gas’ in the York area.”

[A background report is attached to the agenda at Agenda item 5 - Annex A]

ii)            Cllr Reid on behalf of residents of Woodthorpe and Acomb Park objecting to any development on Green Belt land south of Moor Lane, Woodthorpe.

iii)          Cllr Reid on behalf of residents of Newbrough Street in Bootham to ask the Council to consider taking the street into the Residents Priority Parking Scheme.

iv)          Cllr Doughty on behalf of Earswick residents opposing plans to build houses on the Strensall Road site (Earswick).

v)           Cllr Runciman on behalf of local residents organised by the Strensall Liberal Democrats against the allocation of Site 810 (Land to the East of Strensall Road, Earswick) in the Draft Local Plan.

A.  Petition – Frack Free York – signed by 1,193 people plus 750 online signatories

In view of the number of signatories to the following petition asking for a Frack Free York and, in accordance with the Council’s current petitions scheme, this was discussed by Members.  Consideration was also given to a background report from the Cabinet Member of Environment, Planning and Sustainability:

The signatories “petition the Council to:

not to permit any hydraulic fracturing (fracking) or coal seam gas extraction from within or underneath the York area”

Councillor Merrett presented the petition.

Following the debate the Lord Mayor confirmed that the petition and debate had been noted.

B.  Petitions Presented Under Standing Order 7

Under Standing Order 7, petitions were presented by the following Members for reference to the appropriate Committee, Cabinet or Cabinet Member:

i)       Cllr Reid on behalf of residents of Woodthorpe and Acomb Park objecting to any development on Green Belt land south of Moor Lane, Woodthorpe.^1.

ii)            Cllr Reid on behalf of residents of Newbrough Street in Bootham to ask the Council to consider taking the street into the Residents Priority Parking Scheme. ^2.

iii)          Cllr Doughty on behalf of Earswick residents opposing plans to build houses on the Strensall Road site (Earswick). ^3.

iv)          Cllr Runciman on behalf of local residents organised by the Strensall Liberal Democrats against the allocation of Site 810 (Land to the East of Strensall Road, Earswick) in the Draft Local Plan.^4.

v)           Cllr D’Agorne on behalf of local residents calling for a 20mph speed limit for the Heslington Road shopping area.^5.

vi)          Cllr Jeffries on behalf of residents of Westfield Ward asking the Council to improve their neighbourhood by resurfacing roads and footpaths, improving street sweeping, tackling anti-social behaviour and removing weed growth.^6.

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

A written report was received from the Cabinet Leader, Cllr James Alexander, on the work of the Cabinet.

A       Questions

Notice had been received of eighteen questions on the written report, submitted by Members in accordance with Standing Orders. The first four questions were put and answered as follows and Cllr Alexander undertook to provide Members with written answers to the remaining questions

(i)     From Cllr Steward

“When the leader refers to good growth can he give examples of companies in York he believes are currently delivering bad growth?”

The Leader replied:

“I would not draw that distinction, rather that some growth is less beneficial to York and to the public purse where employers are delivering an increase in jobs but paying the minimum wage.

We want to support economic growth but clearly this is something that the council cannot deliver on its own and we need to work with businesses in the city. Clearly, there is an issue in York where we have large numbers of low paid jobs and high paid jobs but insufficient jobs in between. This means although York residents have the opportunity to come off job seekers allowance and become employed, their income levels barely increase and they remain on benefits.

My argument would be to make work more attractive by increasing wage levels, thus reducing the benefits bill. The Conservative Liberal Democrat Government's answer is to demonise those on benefits and reduce access to this support. We want to build on the work we have already started with initiatives like the living wage which has seen two of the largest private sector businesses in the city, Aviva and Nestle, playing a key role.”

(ii)    From Cllr Aspden

“Why did the Cabinet Leader fail to convince even his West Yorkshire Labour colleagues on the Combined Authority that they should support York’s Rail College bid?” 

The Leader replied:

“Because the leaders never had a discussion to support any specific bid. Not all my colleagues on the West Yorkshire combined authority are Labour and the combined authority did not back any bid.”

(iii)   From Cllr Barton

“Would the Leader expand on his statement saying that “£175,000 will be invested in the Public Environment in Hungate,” explaining what will acquired with this money and how it represents an investment rather than simply a purchase?”

The Leader replied:

“My I first say how disappointed I am that you will be serving only one term on the council due to circumstances outside your control. I would not dream of attacking you for this as some Conservatives have attacked members of my party for making the same decision.

An investment can be a purchase. For example you could purchase an item that will increase in value as an investment or such an item could leverage additional funds.

The funding allocated will be used to improve the public environment in this area which is desperately needed after being left derelict for many years. It is an investment as such  ...  view the full minutes text for item 18.

As Chair of the Corporate and Scrutiny Management Committee, Cllr Galvin moved and Cllr Runciman seconded, the following recommendation contained in Minute 62 of the meeting of that Committee held on 12 May 2014, subject to the two references to 2015, in the paragraph headed ‘Online Business/E-Commerce Scrutiny Review’ being amended to read 2014:

Draft Annual Scrutiny Report 2013-14

                               [That Council] approve the Annual Overview and Scrutiny Report, covering the period June 2013 to May 2014, including the additional information in relation to the Loans and Grants Scrutiny Review.

On being put to the vote, the recommendation was declared CARRIED and it was

Resolved:           That the above recommendation in relation to the Annual Scrutiny Report be approved, subject to the two references to 2015, in the paragraph headed ‘Online Business/E-Commerce Scrutiny Review’ being amended to read 2014 .

Request for Change of Scrutiny Committee Terms of Reference

Cllr Galvin then moved, and Cllr Runciman seconded the following recommendation contained in Minute 8 of the Corporate and Scrutiny Management Committee meeting held on 23 June 2014:

Recommended:    That Council approve the slight change to the remits of Economic and City Development and Community Safety Committees, as detailed in paragraph 7 of the report, to redress the balance of responsibilities between the two.

Reason:              To enable the work of Scrutiny Committees to progress efficiently and deliver effective outcomes.

On being put to the vote, the recommendation was declared CARRIED and it was

Resolved:                     That the above recommendation in respect of the slight change to the remits of Economic and City Development and Community Safety Committees be approved. ^1.

As Chair of the Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee, Cllr Funnell moved and Cllr Doughty seconded, the following recommendations contained in Minute 99 of the meeting of that Committee held on 23 April 2014:

Joint Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee (Yorkshire and the Humber)

[That Council]

(i)           Reconfirms its support for the establishment of a Joint Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee (Yorkshire and the Humber), in relation to NHS England’s new review of Congenital Heart Disease services.

(ii)          Delegates relevant functions, as set out in Annex A to the report, that shall be exercisable by the Joint Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee (Yorkshire and the Humber) (JHOSC), subject to such terms and conditions therein.

(iii)        Approves the appointment of Councillor Wiseman to serve on the JHOSC in relation to the new review of Congenital Heart Disease services.

(iv)        Confirms its support for the financial contribution of £1000 to Leeds City Council for the financial year 2014/15 to help cover administrative costs, printing, postage, room hire and other materials and an element of officer time in relation to the work of the JHOSC.

Reason:      In order that the Council’s voice is heard in relation to   NHS England’s new review of Congenital Heart Disease Services

On being put to the vote, the recommendations were declared CARRIED and it was

Resolved:           That the recommendations in relation to the Joint Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee (Yorkshire and the Humber) from the Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting held on 23 April 2014 be approved. ^1.

As Chair of the Staffing Matters and Urgency Committee, Cllr Alexander moved and Cllr Simpson-Laing seconded, the following recommendation contained in Minute 14 of the meeting of that Committee held on 23 June 2014:

Appointments to Committees and Outside Bodies

Recommend:    That Council agree to the appointment of Councillor Funnell as York’s representative on the Joint Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee for Yorkshire and the Humber.

Reason:            In order to make appropriate appointments to the Council’s Committees and Outside Bodies for the current municipal year.

[Note: Councillor Funnell, being recommended to Council as a result of Councillor Wiseman subsequently being appointed at the Annual Meeting to the Health and Wellbeing Board and therefore having a conflict of interest.]

On being put to the vote, the recommendation was declared CARRIED and it was

Resolved:           That the recommendation relating to an appointment to the Joint Health and Overview and Scrutiny Committee for Yorkshire and the Humber from the Staffing Matters and Urgency Committee meeting held on 23 June 2014 be approved. ^1.

As Chair of the Audit and Governance Committee, Councillor Potter moved and Councillor Brooks seconded, the following recommendations contained in minutes 13 and 14 of the Audit and Governance Committee meeting held on 25 June 2014:

Draft Revised Financial Regulations

[That Council] approve the amendments to the Financial Regulations, as set out at paragraphs 5,6,7, and 8 and Annex A of the report, subject to the deletion of the word “solely” from paragraph 38. ^1.

Audit and Governance Committee Effectiveness – Action Plan Update

[That Council] approve the proposed changes to the terms of reference of the Audit and Governance Committee (as set out in Annex 2 of the report) ^2.

On being put to the vote, the recommendations were declared CARRIED and it was

Resolved:  That the above recommendations of the Audit and Governance Committee from their meeting held on 25 June 2014 be approved.

To consider a report which presents to Council the Annual Report of the Audit and Governance Committee for the year ended 16 April 2014.

Council received the Annual Report of the Audit and Governance Committee at pages 163 to 175, on the work of the Committee for the year ending 16 April 2014.

Councillor Potter then moved and Cllr Brooks seconded acceptance of the report and it was

Resolved:                     That the Annual Report of the Audit and Governance Committee for the year ending 16 April 2014 be received and noted.

To receive a report from Councillor Galvin, the Chair of the Corporate and Scrutiny Management Committee (CSMC) on the work of the CSMC.

Council received the report of the Chair of the Corporate and Scrutiny Management Committee at pages 177 to 180, on the work of the Committee.

Councillor Galvin then moved and Cllr Runciman seconded receipt of the report and it was

Resolved:                     That the scrutiny report be received and noted.

To receive a written report from the Cabinet Member for Environmental Services, Planning and Sustainability, and to question the Cabinet Member thereon, provided any such questions are registered in accordance with the timescales and procedures set out in Standing Order 8.2.1.

Council received a written report from Councillor Merrett, Cabinet Member for Environmental Services, Planning and Sustainability.

Notice had been received of nineteen questions on the report submitted by Members in accordance with Standing Orders.  The first four questions were put and answered as follows and Councillor Merrett undertook to provide Members with written answers to the remaining questions

(i)      From Cllr Watt

“Will the Cabinet Member explain why he has failed to honour the commitment made by the Labour Group to the people of York – through its support for the Council’s motion to respect the responses of York’s residents to the Local Plan Preferred Options consultation – by his issuing a Further Sites Consultation that confirms a disregard for the public’s consultation submissions?”

The Cabinet Member replied:

“Clearly Councillor Watt hasn’t understood, or doesn’t wish to, the nature of the recent limited supplementary consultation, despite sitting on the Local Plan working group where officers explained the purpose of this limited additional consultation in detail,  which is about ensuring that additional sites that have been submitted as part of the initial consultation or where there have been significant changes to existing proposed sites that they are consulted on, so we can consider the whole set of responses both to the original consultation and in regard to these additional sites on the same basis. The public response to both the Local Plan Preferred Options Consultation and the Further Sites consultation are being used to inform the drafting of the revised Publication Draft Local Plan version, which will come back to members and be subject itself to consultation later this year.”

(ii)     From Cllr Aspden

“Could the Cabinet Member detail how many recharges have taken place at each point since they were installed and what is the breakdown of users by council/public sector and private residents/businesses?”

The Cabinet Member replied:

“The six electric vehicle charging points installed by City of York Council in Council car parks and Park&Ride sites have been used 212 times since activation in October 2013.

62001 – 35 uses

62002 – 45 uses

62003 – 23 uses

62004 – 85 uses

62005 – 9 uses

62006 – 24 uses

Usage by Council of electric pool car is on-site at Ecodepot, not public charge point so the usage has been by private residents/visitors/businesses.”

(iii)    From Cllr Doughty

“Referring to the Local Plan Extra Sites Consultation, how does the Cabinet Member propose to engage with residents' perceptions that the Labour administration is encouraging developers to bring forward proposals for development on proposed 'safeguarded land' prior to the Local Plan having been adopted, leaving residents to believe these developments are 'done deals'?”

The Cabinet Member replied:

“I’m happy to make absolutely clear that no decision has yet been made on the final portfolio of sites for inclusion in the Publication Draft Local Plan.  This will be considered by Members later this year.  Any discussion with developers and landowners are carefully placed in the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 25.

This report asks Council to agree substitute arrangements on Committees for the Councillors who are not members of a political group.

Councillor Alexander, presented the report and recommendations of the Monitoring Officer in relation to substitute arrangements on Committees for the Councillors who were not members of a political group, namely:

“[That Council]

1)   Approve an amendment to paragraph 6.5.1 (a) of Part 4B of the Constitution adding, at the end of that paragraph, the words: “Independent Councillors may also be appointed to act as named substitutes for other independent Councillors within this rule.”

2)   Appoint the substitute Members set out in paragraph 5 of the report.

Reason: To ensure that each Committee with independent representation has the benefit of such representation even where the appointed Councillor is unable to attend a meeting.”

Cllr Alexander then moved and Cllr Simpson-Laing seconded the above recommendations and it was

Resolved:  That the above recommendations in respect of substitute members for Independent Councillors be approved. ^1.

Minutes of the following meetings of outside bodies, received since the last meeting of Council, have been made available for Members to view via the Council’s website at

http://democracy.york.gov.uk/ecCatDisplay.aspx?sch=doc&cat=12959&path=0

Copies may also be obtained by contacting Democracy Support Group at West Offices, Station Rise, York (tel. 01904 551088)

·        Quality Bus Partnership – 17 March 2014 (Draft Version)

·        Local Government North Yorkshire and York –  6 December 2013

·        Local Government Yorkshire and Humber – Member Improvement and European Board -2 April 2013,

18 September 2013, 20 January 2014 and15 April 2014

·        Safer York/DAAT Partnership Board –3 February 2014

Members are invited to put any questions to the Council’s representatives on the above bodies, in accordance with Standing Order 10(b).

Minutes of the following meetings had been made available for Members to view on the Council’s website:

·        Quality Bus Partnership – 17 March 2014 (Draft Version)

·        Local Government North Yorkshire and York –  6 December 2013

·        Local Government Yorkshire and Humber – Member Improvement and European Board -2 April 2013,

18 September 2013, 20 January 2014 and 15 April 2014

·        Safer York/DAAT Partnership Board –3 February 2014

No questions had been submitted to representatives on outside bodies.

To consider the following Notices of Motion under Standing Order 12:

A – Motions referred from the Cabinet in accordance with Standing Order 12.1(a)

To deal with the following Lendal Bridge notice of motion referred back to Council by Cabinet,  from its meeting on 6 May 2014, after consideration of the evaluation of the trial. A copy of the Cabinet report and minute are attached as Annexes 1 and 2 (Annexes A to G of this report are available online only).

(i)        From Cllr Reid

“Council notes the report in The Press on 27th February which revealed important facts about the Lendal Bridge closure.

Council further notes that:

1.   The Labour Cabinet’s six-month trial closure of Lendal Bridge should have finished at the end of February

2.   The closure has brought widespread criticism from local residents, business owners, tourists and tourist groups

3.   Negative media and social media coverage has been generated to the detriment of our city

4.   The closure has failed to significantly improve overall bus journey times

5.   Traffic displaced by the closure has caused increased congestion elsewhere in the city e.g. Foss Islands Road and Water End at Clifton Bridge

6.   Officers have admitted that the trial closure has had little impact on overall air quality

7.   The Labour Cabinet Member responsible has admitted that the signage at the start of the trial was “very confusing”

8.   Around 45,000 motorists have received fines for crossing the bridge.

Council therefore resolves to ask Cabinet to:

a.      immediately end the trial closure of Lendal Bridge

b.      publicly admit that the trial has been botched and to apologise for this

c.      immediately publish the raw data on the trial ahead of their detailed evaluation report

d.      commit to consulting with residents and local businesses before bringing forward any future plans for Lendal Bridge.”

B – Motions submitted for consideration directly by Council, in accordance with Standing Order 12.1(b)

(i)        From Cllr Burton

“Council notes the difficult trading circumstances of the high street with challenges from internet shopping and a fragile economic recovery.  Although York has one of the lowest shop vacancy rates in the country, Acomb has some of the highest concentrations of empty properties of any concentration of retail in the city. 

Council believes that under the Liberal Democrats City of York Council did little to reverse Acomb’s fortunes and this was a stance backed by Conservatives.  

Council resolves that under a Labour administration the Cabinet will receive options to consider extending business rates relief for all empty properties on Front Street being brought back into use.” 

(ii)      From Cllr Steward

“Regarding York potentially becoming a fully constituted member of the West Yorkshire Combined Authority (WYCA), council notes:

1.  Lack of cross-party support on a commitment which will affect York for many years;

2.  Lack of consultation with residents, businesses and community groups;

3.  That a minority of residents know about the WYCA and its implications for York, and of those who do the majority oppose membership;  ...  view the full agenda text for item 28.

A     Motions referred from the Cabinet in accordance with Standing Order 12.1(a)

(i)        Lendal Bridge (proposed by Cllr Reid)

It was moved by Cllr Reid and seconded by Cllr Cuthbertson that:

“Council notes the report in The Press on 27th February which revealed important facts about the Lendal Bridge closure.

Council further notes that:

1.   The Labour Cabinet’s six-month trial closure of Lendal Bridge should have finished at the end of February

2.   The closure has brought widespread criticism from local residents, business owners, tourists and tourist groups

3.   Negative media and social media coverage has been generated to the detriment of our city

4.   The closure has failed to significantly improve overall bus journey times

5.   Traffic displaced by the closure has caused increased congestion elsewhere in the city e.g. Foss Islands Road and Water End at Clifton Bridge

6.   Officers have admitted that the trial closure has had little impact on overall air quality

7.   The Labour Cabinet Member responsible has admitted that the signage at the start of the trial was “very confusing”

8.   Around 45,000 motorists have received fines for crossing the bridge.

Council therefore resolves to ask Cabinet to:

a.   immediately end the trial closure of Lendal Bridge

b.   publicly admit that the trial has been botched and to apologise for this

c.   immediately publish the raw data on the trial ahead of their detailed evaluation report

d.   commit to consulting with residents and local businesses before bringing forward any future plans for Lendal Bridge.”

The first amendment was proposed by Councillor Aspden and seconded by Councillor Ayre as follows:

“Insert after paragraph 8.

9. In April when challenged as to what he would do if the fines given to motorists using Lendal Bridge were proved to have been unlawful, Cllr Merrett told BBC Radio York: "Yes, I accept that at the end of the day that if we've got it wrong to that extent that I'd have to resign".

10. The Cabinet's decision to reopen Lendal Bridge and withdraw the appeal against the Traffic Adjudicator's ruling that the fines given out were unlawful.

Following the words ‘Council therefore resolves to ask Cabinet to:’

Delete paragrapha.

Replace paragraph c. with:

refund all Lendal Bridge fines as they were issued using an unlawful method of enforcement

Insert additional text

Council further calls on the Cabinet Member in charge of the trial to stick to his word and resign from the Cabinet; Council also calls for the Leader of the Council to take responsibility for this botched trial and resign.”

On being put to the vote the amendment was declared LOST.

A second amendment was proposed by Councillor D’Agorne as follows:

“Add a final paragraph:

“Council further resolves that:

The proposals for an 'independently chaired  ...  view the full minutes text for item 28.

To deal with the following questions to the Cabinet Leader and / or other Cabinet Members, in accordance with Standing Order 11.3(a):

(i)        To the Cabinet Leader from Cllr Steward:

“What were the full costs, including everything from time of officer salaries to pre conference wine and canapes of the recent Fairness Conference and what are the tangible outcomes which the conference led to?”

(ii)      To the Cabinet Leader from Cllr Healey:

“What were the reasons given for the University of York's withdrawal of funding from Science City York?”

(iii)     To the Cabinet Leader from Cllr Jeffries:

“Why did the Council Leader not take earlier action to address the overspends being recorded on social care budgets and what is his latest estimate of expenditure against budget for this area for the current financial year?”

(iv)    To the Cabinet Leader from Cllr Brooks:

“If the Leader of the Council may exercise any function of Cabinet where a decision cannot reasonably wait until the next meeting,  will he explain what was so important about the decision to re-open Lendal Bridge that it could not wait until the Cabinet meeting?”

(v)      To the Cabinet Leader from Cllr Aspden:

“As the council’s revenue account only came in on budget last year because of Automatic Number Plate Recognition fine income and lower than anticipated debt charges (itself the result of low interest rates coupled with many capital projects having slipped into the current financial year), will the Cabinet Leader agree now to abandon at least some of his profligate “vanity” projects?”

(vi)    To the Cabinet Leader from Cllr Steward:

“Will the leader use this oppurtunity tofinally apologise to York’s residents for the shambles of the Lendal Bridge trial?”

(vii)   To the Cabinet Leader from Cllr Healey:

“What have been the outcomes and jobs created from the additional 2 year funding given to Science City York by this administration?”

(viii)  To the Cabinet Leader from Cllr Healey:

“How many applicants have been considered for the Interim Director position of the new company to be formed to provide 'Marketing and Business Development'?”

(ix)    To the Deputy Leader from Cllr Ayre:

“There has been interest from citizens in contributing to the revised council constitution – could the Deputy Leader explain how this can be facilitated in the light of the Leader's commitment to coproduction and engagement?”

(x)      To the Cabinet Member for Homes and Safer Communities from Cllr Barton:

“Has the Dutch government's "Container Housing Scheme" been investigated for York and if so what conclusions have been drawn?”

(xi)    To the Cabinet Member for Homes and Safer Communities from Cllr Barton:

“Does the Cabinet Member have statistics available showing the success in York of the Government's "Help to Buy" scheme?”

(xii)   To the Cabinet Member for Homes and Safer Communities from Cllr Jeffries:

“When will tenants receiving the garden assistance service be notified about how the new contractor will catch-up the backlog of work which has left very neglected gardens all around the  ...  view the full agenda text for item 29.

Fifty nine questions to the Leader and Cabinet Members had been received under Standing Order 11.3(a).  The guillotine having fallen at this point, Members agreed to receive written answers to their questions, as set out below:

(i)        To the Cabinet Leader from Cllr Steward:

“What were the full costs, including everything from time of officer salaries to pre conference wine and canapes of the recent Fairness Conference and what are the tangible outcomes which the conference led to?”

Reply:

“The recommendation to host an International Fairness Conference was a recommendation of York's Independent Fairness Commission.

The drinks reception was kindly provided by the University of York. The event was held on Sunday to welcome our overseas guests and no staff overtime was claimed by City of York Council Employees.

The overall cost of the International Fairness Conference itself was £18,635.58. £8,635.58 was provided by City of York Council and £10,000 was donated by JRF. Some elements of the conference were provided free of charge, including the venue hire cost, by the University of York.

We are sharing policies and other evidence-based ways of tackling poverty with cities nationally. Much of this is to do with influencing government policy. The event and contacts made through the event will help inform the future development of the Financial Inclusion and poverty strategies.

We also used the session to share and discuss the experience of poverty and fairness in York. I was pleased that there was an excellent session led by the pupils of York High School and other York residents. Over the next few weeks, we will be working with the JRF and the York residents that ran the community session at the conference to run sessions in York to help us better understand how to address financial hardship in the city.”

(ii)      To the Cabinet Leader from Cllr Healey:

“What were the reasons given for the University of York's withdrawal of funding from Science City York?”

Reply:

“As a result of a strategic review of priorities for the institution the University of York has determined that it wishes to strengthen its work between university departments and business directly. The University will continue to partner and to co-invest in Biovale, an innovation cluster in biorenewables technologies, with City of York Council, continue to own York Science Park with the Council and has also expressed a willingness to engage with the new company being established to consolidate wider business support activity in the city.

The council's representative on the board of Science City was briefed during the change in policy as was the Chair of Economic and City Development Scrutiny Committee.”

(iii)     To the Cabinet Leader from Cllr Jeffries:

“Why did the Council Leader not take earlier action to address the overspends being recorded on social care budgets and what is his latest estimate of expenditure against budget for this area for the current financial year?”

Reply:

“I have been raising issues about expenditure in this area since December 2009 when I  ...  view the full minutes text for item 29.