Agenda and minutes

The Lord Mayor announced that, following a request from two Members of Council to address the meeting, he was of the opinion that their requests should be considered as urgent business by virtue of Section 100B(4)(b) of the Local Government Act 1972.

Councillor Scott, made a personal statement, to confirm that it was with great regret, he was resigning from the Labour Group and the Labour Whip. He indicated that, following issues with the leadership team, he would become an Independent Labour member to enable him to continue his work in the Clifton Ward.

Councillor King also made a personal statement to confirm his sadness in also having to offer his resignation to the Labour Group, after having held a number of positions within the Group over many years. He stated that he was no longer able to work with members of the Group and he wanted to share this with the Clifton Ward and York residents.

Councillor Alexander expressed his deep regret at Councillors Scott and King’s decision to leave the Labour Group and he wished them both well in the future.

Councillor Levene then moved and Councillor Horton seconded that the order of business be varied to allow Councillor Steward’s Notice of Motion at Agenda item 12Bii) relating to the results of the Organisational Development Action Plan to be moved up the agenda for consideration at Agenda item 8.

Resolved:  That the business of Council be varied to allow Councillor Steward’s motion listed at Agenda item 12Bii) to be considered earlier at Agenda item 8.

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 interests were declared:

The following personal interests were declared:

To approve and sign the minutes of the last meeting of Council held on 17 July 2014.

Resolved:  That the minutes of the last ordinary meeting of the Council held on 17 July 2014 be approved and signed by the Chair as a correct record

The Lord Mayor announced that this was the first Council meeting since the death of Cllr Lynn Jeffries, a Liberal Democrat Westfield Ward Councillor for a number of years. He confirmed that although her presence at these meetings would be sadly missed he hoped that her equalities legacy would live on in all the Council’s  work.

He also reported the recent death of Bob Edwards, former Labour Councillor who was first elected to the Bishophill Ward in 1979.

Members stood for a moments silence in memory of the former Councillors.

The Lord Mayor announced receipt of the following gifts, a wall plaque from the Captain of HMS Dragon, York’s affiliated ship, following a visit by the civic party on the 2 October. A watercolour painting from the town of Orsogna, presented to the civic party in July, when they were in York taking part in the Mystery Plays and a two ‘medals’ from Italian students, who were in York on an educational visit in September.

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 8 October 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 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.

Danny Dorney, Chair of the Jorvik Deaf Connections group, signed by Vicci Ackroyd, spoke to the petition to be presented by Cllr Barnes, which reported on the formation of the Deaf Connections group following concerns at the services provided by the Deaf Society. He spoke of a lack of information and access to the Social Club, particularly children, and a disregard for the needs and requirements of the wider deaf community. The petition asked the Council and the Charity Commission to investigate the funding provided to the York Deaf Society, access to the Club and the current management of the Society.

Michaela Coxon, spoke in support of the petition to be presented later in the evening by Councillor Douglas from residents of Peter Hill Drive. She referred to the excessive speed of vehicles using the road as a short cut and to the petitions request for the erection of bollards between Peter Hill Drive and Spalding Avenue for the safety of residents.

Eileen Johnson, also spoke in support of a petition to be presented later in the evening by Councillor Douglas in relation to the continued use of the Burton Stone Community Centre by various Groups. As Chair of the York Coronary Support Group she raised concerns that the Group had been informed that they would no longer be able to use the Centre, which they had used for the last 20 years, for their fitness classes. She referred to the valuable service they provided and to the equipment stored on the premises. They asked Council to reconsider their plans to enable the Group to continue its work.

Gordon Renshaw, of the York Renal Exercise Group also spoke in support of the second petition to be presented later by Councillor Douglas relating to the continued use of the Burton Stone Community Centre. He reiterated the concerns of the earlier speaker at the changes proposed at the Centre. He also highlighted the benefits their exercise group offered to renal patients in maintaining and improving their lives. The Group asked the Council to provide a suitable central alternative to ensure continuation of their Group.

Fiona Evans, spoke on behalf of the Yearsley Pool Action Group, confirming that the Group were not against a Community Stadium but that their objection related to the inclusion of Yearsley Pool in the Stadium process. She confirmed that the Group asked for equal treatment and a future commitment to the Pool as previously agreed. She referred to the benefits the pool played in the health and fitness of the city and requested a guarantee that the Pool would not be closed in the Council’s next 4 year term.

Sophie Hicks, spoke in support of the Cabinet recommendation to provide capital investment for the new Community Stadium complex. She outlined the consequences of any delay in funding of the Stadium on York City Football Club. She reiterated the need for a sustainable future for the Club and highlighted the benefits the Stadium would offer  ...  view the full minutes text for item 35.

The Leader moved a motion to suspend Standing Orders to enable the Director of Children’s Services, Education and Skills to address the meeting regarding arrangements made in York to identify and address sexual exploitation issues.

Resolved:  That Standing Orders be suspended to allow the Director of Children’s Services, Education and Skills to address the meeting.

Council will consider suspending Standing Orders to enable the Director of Children's Services, Education and Skills to address the meeting regarding arrangements in York to identify and address sexual exploitation issues, in light of recent events in Rotherham (15 minutes).

The Director of Children’s Services, Education and Skills addressed the meeting regarding arrangements made in York to identify and address sexual exploitation issues, in light of recent events in Rotherham. He outlined the work being undertaken with partners to protect vulnerable children to ensure that similar events did not take place in the city.  He read a message from Simon Westwood, Chair of the Safeguarding Children Board outlining the local strategies in place to ensure that York would remain a safe place for children.

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

i)             Cllr Douglas on behalf of residents of Peter Hill Drive, requesting the Council to block the road due to the  excessive speeding of vehicles on the road.

ii)            Cllr Douglas on behalf of residents requesting the Council to support the continuance of the Burton Stone Community Centre.

iii)          Cllr Gunnell on behaIf of residents of South Bank Avenue, Micklegate Ward  requesting a 20 mph speed limit on their road.

iv)          Cllr Reid on behalf of Strensall residents objecting to the inclusion of site H30 in the Local Plan.

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

i)       Cllr Douglas on behalf of residents of Peter Hill Drive requesting the Council to block Peter Hill Drive at one end due to excessive speeding on the road.^1.

ii)            Cllr Douglas on behalf of residents concerned at the Council’s proposed changes at the Burton Stone Community Centre which they felt would not cater for exercise classes, principally heart patients. ^2.

iii)          Cllr Gunnell on behalf of residents of South Bank Avenue concerned at the regular breaking of the 20mph speed limit along the road and urging the Council, in consultation with residents, to implement traffic calming measures. ^3.

iv)          Cllr Reid on behalf of residents of Strensall objecting to the inclusion of site H30 (land between The Village and the railway line) in the draft Local Plan.^4.

v)           Cllr D’Agorne on behalf of residents of Walmgate and Navigation Road and the surrounding residential streets asking the Council to extend the rollout of the 20mph limit to their area. ^5.

vi)          Cllr Barnes on behalf of members of the Jorvik Deaf Connections group and other members of the wider deaf community, asking the Council to investigate the funding provided to the York Deaf Society and the lack of access to services provided by the Society. ^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 sixteen questions on the written report, submitted by Members in accordance with Standing Orders. The first nine 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

“Does the leader share my view that zero hours contracts are a problem when people are restricted to one employer and welcome the Prime Minister clamping down on that, or does he oppose all zero hours contracts per se?”

The Leader replied:

Yes,  I welcome any action against exclusivity clauses in zero hour contracts. I think there is at times a place for zero hour contracts, but they should not be exploited by some employers.

(ii)    From Cllr Aspden

“What specific positive steps will the Leader be taking to address concerns about the growth in part time work?”

The Leader replied:

I will continue to help existing businesses to grow, support new start up employers and attract businesses to York. This will help increase the employment market for full-time work.

(iii)   From Cllr Barton

“In future could the Council Leader allocate more of his report to the addressing of local front line issues rather than national and local economic statistics unlikely to be considered by residents in York as burning issues. In short, could we have ‘more meat on the bone in future please?’”

The Leader replied:

I focus on the big issues and those pertaining to my portfolio, primarily economic development. Details on front line service performance is reported to both the cabinet and to scrutiny committees. That is not what the leader's report is for.

(iv)   From Cllr Steward

“With the leader’s report objecting to two further call-ins as inappropriate in his eyes can he detail any call-ins this term he has not felt were wrong to be done or does he genuinely believe no decision of his administration has been worth further scrutiny?”

 The Leader replied:

It is up to members of scrutiny to decide where scrutiny is required. Sometimes I feel this misses the point, for example the recent waste scrutiny report. I believe all too often in this council, including under Labour, the call-in process has been abused to delay decision making or to generate headlines over decisions. When I became leader of the opposition I tried to ensure this happened less frequently.

(v)    From Cllr Orrell

“Does the Leader think it is unreasonable to request consultation with local residents on the closure of Waterworld?”

The Leader replied:

I do not think it is unreasonable to request consultation on any matter. Whether that consultation proceeds or in what form is another matter.

(vi)   From Cllr Reid

“Could the Leader breakdown those affected by the council's living wage policy by department?”

The Leader replied:

The table below represents the number of employees receiving the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 39.

A     Motion submitted for consideration directly by Council, in accordance with Standing Order 12.1(b)

(i)        Organisational Development Plan (proposed by Cllr Steward)

“Council notes with concern the results of the Organisational Development Action Plan, in particular the Leadership section and the current position re ‘Concern about the Behaviour of some Members’. This follows last year’s Peer Challenge review which also expressed concern regarding members’ understanding of council priorities and the lack of clarity within the council.

Council requests that an independent body be appointed to report back to the Audit and Governance Committee no later than its meeting of 10 December 2014 and that the report is delivered directly to this committee, investigating these concerns and whether Members have acted in a manner which falls below that which staff and residents expect.”

An amendment was proposed by Councillor Alexander as follows:

The addition of the following final paragraph:

This report should take into account the personalised politics being exhibited within York by elected members and their supporters – most notably on social media.

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

The original motion, as amended on being put to the vote, was also declared CARRIED.

Resolved:  That the motion, as amended, be approved. ^1.

As Chair of the Audit and Governance Committee, Councillor Potter firstly moved the following recommendation, in respect of new Council Procedure Rules contained in minute 34 of the Audit and Governance Committee meeting held on 29 September 2014 (circulated at the meeting):

Recommend:[That Council agree]        

(i)      That the rules set out in the attached

annex be adopted in place of the existing constitutional provisions.

(ii)      That the rules set out in paragraph 19 of the report apply to Committees, Cabinet and other groups referred to in the Constitution.

(iii)     That the recommendations in respect of paragraphs 11.1, 15 and 24.3 (as detailed above) be approved.

Reason:              To ensure that the Council meetings operate effectively.”

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 meeting held on 29 September 2014 be approved. ^1.

Secondly, Councillor Potter, as Chair of the Audit and Governance Committee moved the following recommendations, in respect of new arrangements for dealing with petitions to the Council contained in minute 35 of the reconvened meeting held on 2 October 2014 (circulated at the meeting):

Recommend:      (i)      That Council amends the terms of

reference for the Corporate and Scrutiny Management   Committee by adding:

“7.  To receive details of petitions received by the Council in line with the Council’s published arrangements and responses or proposed responses to those petitions. To consider using its powers as a scrutiny committee to support the Council in responding appropriately to issues raised by such petitions and, in doing so, to promote public engagement”

                             (ii)      That, as part of the updating of the

petitions scheme to reflect the changes detailed in the report, consideration be given to the inclusion of:

·        A requirement for the petitioner to be notified, within five working days, of how the petition was being handled.

·        A requirement for a report to be presented to Full Council detailing the petitions that had been considered by the committee and the action that had been taken in response.

Reason:     To ensure that the Council responds appropriately to petitions.

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 meeting held on 2 October 2014 be approved. ^2.

It was noted that the item on the agenda relating to a recommendations from the Audit and Governance Committee’s meeting on 2 October 2014, in relation to the enhancement of scrutiny in York, were not presented at the meeting as the Committee had deferred the item for further consideration.

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 89 to 92, on the work of the Committee.

Councillor Galvin then moved 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 Health and Community Engagement 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 Cunningham-Cross, Cabinet Member for Health and Community Engagement.

Notice had been received of fourteen questions on the report submitted by Members in accordance with Standing Orders.  As the guillotine had now fallen, Councillor Cunningham-Cross undertook to provide Members with written answers to the questions.

(i)      From Cllr Douglas

“The Cabinet Member gives an interesting overview of the potential impact of the Care Act 2014.  Given its imminent enactment, when does she envisage having more detailed information to share- what will change, when and at what cost?”

Reply:

I am slightly surprised by this question as Cllr Douglas attended my most recent cross-party ASC briefing during which we were given a comprehensive briefing of the implications of the Care Act by senior officers. In terms of presenting further information as it becomes available, I am happy to continue doing this through the cross-party meetings now established. This item will also be covered at the meeting of the HWBB on 22^nd October, which you would be most welcome to attend – or watch the webcast.

Briefly:

What will change

-      a shift in focus to early intervention/prevention e.g. community navigators and re-ablement

-      better information and advice (enabling people to make better decisions)

-      integration: better coordinated care including work to provide personalhealth and social care budgets for those with long term conditions

-      enhanced provision of support for carers

-      £72,000 cap on care costs

-      statutory safeguarding board

-      improving market oversight to enable us to manage risk better

When

-      Some changes come into effect April 2015; these include safeguarding board becoming a statutory body

-      The rest of the provisions (most that relate to money, including the care cost cap) come into effect April 2016.

What cost?

-      At this time we have estimated an additional £3.352m cost pressures in 2015/16 to deliver the Care Act.

(ii)      From Cllr Ayre

“Does the Cabinet Member agree with the conclusions drawn by external auditors that her predecessor's EPH project saw £600,000 of planned savings not delivered because "assumptions were flawed", "savings were double counted", "there was no effective challenge of assumptions" and the project suffered as "members made changes"?”

Reply:

I don’t believe Cllr’s Ayre’s question offers an accurate reading of the auditor’s report nor is it a true reflection of the service as it stands today.

(iii)    From Cllr Richardson

“Could the Cabinet Member confirm whether Her Majesty’s Government? (HMG) is making additional funding available to contribute towards the additional costs of the Cheshire West Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard (DOLs) ruling and if so what impact this will have on the predicted year-end deficit?”

Reply:

No, I am not able to confirm that at this time.

Currently the Dept of Health have surveyed all LA’s about the additional costs and we anticipate some recognition of the additional burdens to Councils however there is nothing firmed up on this a this stage. In 2013/14  ...  view the full minutes text for item 43.

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)

·        Yorkshire Purchasing Association -  30 June 2014

·        Without Walls Partnership – 25 June and 17 September 2014

·        NHS Foundation Trust – 12 March 2014

·        York Quality Bus Partnership – 14 July 2014

·        Local Government Yorkshire and Humber – Draft minutes of AGM, 14 July 2014

·        Local Government Yorkshire and Humber – Employers’ Committee -  17 July 2014

·        Local Government Yorkshire and Humber - Member Improvement & European Board – Minutes 17 July 2014

·        North Yorkshire Fire & Rescue Authority – 25 June 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:

·        Yorkshire Purchasing Association -  30 June 2014

·        Without Walls Partnership – 25 June and 17 September 2014

·        NHS Foundation Trust – 12 March 2014

·        York Quality Bus Partnership – 14 July 2014

·        Local Government Yorkshire and Humber – Draft minutes of AGM, 14 July 2014

·        Local Government Yorkshire and Humber – Employers’ Committee -  17 July 2014

·        Local Government Yorkshire and Humber - Member Improvement & European Board – Minutes 17 July 2014

·        North Yorkshire Fire & Rescue Authority – 25 June 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)

None

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

(i)        From Cllr Levene

“City of York Council:

 (i)   notes the economic, social and environmental benefits that would be delivered by electrification of the Leeds-Harrogate-York line, as set out in the Leeds-Harrogate-York Rail line Improvements Outline Transport Business Case, and calls upon the Department for Transport and Network Rail to make this a priority;

(ii)    invites the Chief Executive to continue to work with Harrogate Borough Council and other interested stakeholders such as local Members of Parliament, North Yorkshire County Council and local Chambers of Commerce in order to make representations to the Department of Transport, Network Rail and others,, particularly the Electrification Task Force, to secure these benefits for the people of York and Harrogate;

(iii)   notes that Harrogate Borough Council will be considering a similar motion lobbying relevant parties to support electrification of this line.”

(ii)      From Cllr Steward

                                                                                                                                                                                                                        “Council notes with concern the results of the Organisational Development Action Plan, in particular the Leadership section and the current position re ‘Concern about the Behaviour of some Members’. This follows last year’s Peer Challenge review which also expressed concern regarding members’ understanding of council priorities and the lack of clarity within the council.

Council requests that an independent body be appointed to report back to the Audit and Governance Committee no later than its meeting of 10 December 2014 and that the report is delivered directly to this committee, investigating these concerns and whether Members have acted in a manner which falls below that which staff and residents expect.”

(iii)     From Cllr Reid

“Council notes that in order to pass the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) ‘Test of Soundness” the Local Plan must be:

·        Positively Prepared - based on a strategy which seeks to meet objectively assessed development and infrastructure requirements.

·        Justified - the plan should be the most appropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alternatives.

·        Effective - the plan should be deliverable over its period and based on effective joint working on cross-border strategic priorities.

Council believes that the current draft plan approved by Cabinet on the 25^th September:

·        does not accurately reflect the evidence base and is therefore not based on objectively assessed requirements.

·        is not the most appropriate strategy and has ignored reasonable alternatives rather than test the approach against them.

·        is not deliverable over the plan period  and is contrary to the combined methodological approach of the Leeds City Region.

Council believes that the current proposals also fail to adequately reflect the results of the citywide consultations undertaken in July 2013 and July 2014.

Council believes that the current proposals will result in the plan being found unsound by the planning inspector leaving the city vulnerable.

Council instructs that planned consultation on the current proposals is halted. 

In order  ...  view the full agenda text for item 45.

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

(i)        Electrification of the Leeds-Harrogate-York railway line (proposed by Cllr Levene)

“City of York Council:

 (i)   notes the economic, social and environmental benefits that would be delivered by electrification of the Leeds-Harrogate-York line, as set out in the Leeds-Harrogate-York Rail line Improvements Outline Transport Business Case, and calls upon the Department for Transport and Network Rail to make this a priority;

(ii)    invites the Chief Executive to continue to work with Harrogate Borough Council and other interested stakeholders such as local Members of Parliament, North Yorkshire County Council and local Chambers of Commerce in order to make representations to the Department of Transport, Network Rail and others, particularly the Electrification Task Force, to secure these benefits for the people of York and Harrogate;

(ii)          notes that Harrogate Borough Council will be considering a similar motion lobbying relevant parties to support electrification of this line.”

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

Resolved:  That the above motion be approved. ^2.

(iii)     Local Plan (proposed by Cllr Reid)

“Council notes that in order to pass the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) ‘Test of Soundness” the Local Plan must be:

·        Positively Prepared - based on a strategy which seeks to meet objectively assessed development and infrastructure requirements.

·        Justified - the plan should be the most appropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alternatives.

·        Effective - the plan should be deliverable over its period and based on effective joint working on cross-border strategic priorities.

Council believes that the current draft plan approved by Cabinet on the 25^th September:

·        does not accurately reflect the evidence base and is therefore not based on objectively assessed requirements.

·        is not the most appropriate strategy and has ignored reasonable alternatives rather than test the approach against them.

·        is not deliverable over the plan period  and is contrary to the combined methodological approach of the Leeds City Region.

Council believes that the current proposals also fail to adequately reflect the results of the citywide consultations undertaken in July 2013 and July 2014.

Council believes that the current proposals will result in the plan being found unsound by the planning inspector leaving the city vulnerable.

Council instructs that planned consultation on the current proposals is halted. 

In order to accurately reflect objectively assessed requirements, Council instructs officers to produce a report on housing trajectory to be brought to the next meeting of the Local Plan Working Group (LPWG) along with the relevant background reports. 

The LPWG will then agree an accurate analysis of housing trajectory that is objective, evidence based and deliverable. This analysis will then be used to inform housing allocations and a new proposed Local Plan will be brought to the next LPWG for discussion and recommendation to Cabinet in November.”

An amendment was proposed by Councillor D’Agorne as follows:

Delete final two paragraphs.

Replace with

‘In order to enable a decision to be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 45.

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:

“Can the Leader outline what specific powers he would like devolved to Yorkshire / Yorkshire & Humber?”

(ii)      To the Cabinet Leader from Cllr Steward:

“What tangible spending commitments has York benefitted from to date from the West Yorkshire Combined Authority?”

(iii)     To the Cabinet Leader from Cllr Steward:

“Can the Leader reassure members that residents will always come first in the focus of the transformation agenda and allay fears that some in the Labour group are more concerned about the methods of service delivery (for example the level of private sector involvement) rather than the quality of service to residents?”

(iv)    To the Cabinet Leader from Cllr Doughty:

“Given the Labour administration's supposed inability to help fund the main meal of the day for vulnerable and elderly people at a cost of £50,000 per year at sheltered housing complexes at Barstow House, Gale Farm Court, Glen Lodge and Marjorie Waite Court, could the Cabinet Leader please confirm how much taxpayer's money has been spent on art work in and around West Offices since it opened?”

(v)      To the Cabinet Leader from Cllr Doughty:

“Given the threat of withdrawal of financial support to Community Centres around the city with his groups tired excuse of Government cuts rather than careful choice decisions, does the Cabinet Leader still believe his Labour administration's decision to give £100,000 towards the 'arts barge' project to be a good use of public funds?”

(vi)    To the Cabinet Member for Environmental Services, Planning and Sustainability from Cllr D’Agorne:

“What action is being taken to secure prosecution of bus operators running defective engine vehicles polluting our streets with black smoke and what action is planned to stop unnecessary vehicle idling by buses in Rougier St and other Air Quality blackspots?”

(vii)   To the Cabinet Member for Environmental Services, Planning and Sustainability from Cllr D’Agorne:

“Can he explain how Labour’s claimed reduction of 5000 houses in the Local Plan actually equates to less than half that number being removed from site lists and no reduction in the area of land allocated for development?”

(viii)  To the Cabinet Member for Environmental Services, Planning and Sustainability from Cllr Doughty:

“Can the Cabinet Member evidence just exactly how the views of thousands of residents have been considered and reflected (at all) in the Draft Local Plan consultation?”

(ix)    To the Cabinet Member for Environmental Services, Planning and Sustainability from Cllr Doughty:

“The Draft Local Plan continues to plan for 'safeguarded' land (reserving for future development) beyond the life of the plan when there is no requirement under the National Planning Policy Framework. A prime example of this in my own ward, amongst others, is site '810' on crucial greenbelt at Earswick. Why is this?”

(x)      To the Cabinet Member for Environmental Services, Planning and Sustainability from Cllr Richardson:

“Because of Council’s  ...  view the full agenda text for item 46.

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: