Agenda and minutes

At the beginning of the meeting, the Deputy Lord Mayor paid tribute to the Duchess of Kent and former Councillor Eurig Thomas who had passed away recently. A minute’s silence was observed in their memory.

To receive and note apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were received from the Lord Mayor, Councillor Rowley BEM and from Councillor Waudby.

At this point in the meeting, Members and co-opted members are asked to declare any disclosable pecuniary interest, or other registerable interest, they might have in respect of business on this agenda, if they have not already done so in advance on the Register of Interests. The disclosure must include the nature of the interest.

An interest must also be disclosed in the meeting when it becomes apparent to the member during the meeting.

(1)         Members must consider their interests, and act according to the

following:

(2)         Disclosable pecuniary interests relate to the Member concerned or their spouse/partner.

(3)         Members in arrears of Council Tax by more than two months must not vote in decisions on, or which might affect, budget calculations, and must disclose at the meeting that this restriction applies to them. A failure to comply with these requirements is a criminal offence under section 106 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992.

There were no declarations of interest.

To approve and sign the minutes of the Council meeting held on 17 July 2025.

Resolved: That the minutes of the Council meeting held on 17

July 2025 be approved and signed by the Chair as a correct

record.

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

The Deputy Lord Mayor thanked the Civic Party for their work since May to promote the City of York, noting that the Lord Mayor and his party had been extremely busy. She referred to the display of gifts in front of her, that had been given to the Leader by the visiting Women’s Rugby Union World Cup teams.

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, 16 September 2025.

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.

Peter Rollings spoke on behalf of Rufforth with Knapton Parish Council, expressing concerns relating to Item 10a, Constitutional Changes, the proposed changes to planning committee. He noted his disappointment that parish councils had not been consulted on the proposals and stated that the minimum size of developments to go to planning committee was not appropriate for smaller, rural communities and that this would lead to a lack of public scrutiny.  He asked for the proposals to be rejected or deferred so that consultation with parish councils could be undertaken.

Edward Pearson also spoke in relation to Item 10a, Constitutional Changes, the proposed changes to planning committee, on behalf of Haxby Town Council. He stated that the lack of consultation breached the principles of the Parish Charter and damaged trust. Without consultation, amendments and mitigations to reduce the impact of the changes could not be achieved.

Helen Widdowson spoke on behalf of Spare Handle Co-housing to describe the benefits of co-housing for the city.  She stated that the group could assist the council in achieving its goals in relation to housing. She invited Councillors Pavlovic and Smalley to a meeting so that they could learn more about the initiative.

Jake Furby, Co-Chair of Trustees for York LGBTQ+ forum, spoke to the council’s responsibility to ensure the safety of marginalised communities. He explained that safe and accessible spaces in the city were essential to achieve this. He asked that city councillors commit to working with all marginalised groups to ensure that public and civic spaces were safe.

Michael Kearney, a resident, stated that hate crime was rising, and that the flags recently seen in York symbolised hate and intolerance against migrants and other marginalised groups. He called for safe social spaces for the LGBTQ+ community in York.

Bigby Eris Waterson spoke about venues being unwilling to host events for the transgender and non-binary communities, stating that there was a lack of council and police support for ‘queer folk’ and noting that a safe, affordable space was needed.

Stevastian Hook called on the council to recognise the need for queer safe spaces, identifying a lack of venues, especially in the evening, that were fully inclusive. They also stated that there was no queer art scene in the city.

Heather Disley, a resident, spoke to York’s position as a global city, attractive to international visitors and students and recently identified by the Guardian as one of the country’s happiest places to live. She stated that flags eroded this feeling and were divisive symbols. She called for investment in anti-racism training for CYC staff and tourism businesses.

Ryan Wilson, a resident, stated that residents were feeling frightened and threatened. He asked that the council work with, and build positive links with, communities to show that York is welcoming and inclusive. 

Isabella Langdon, a PHD engineering student, studying in York, stated that there were many recent examples of hate crime in the city but that this shift in attitude was reversible. She emphasised the importance of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 32.

To consider any petitions received from Members in accordance with Standing Order B5.  Notice has been received of twopetitions to be presented by:

      i.          Councillor Taylor regarding parking restrictions on Manor Drive South.

     ii.          Councillor Orrell regarding a pedestrian and cycle crossing in Huntington.

Under Rule B6, the following petitions were presented for consideration by the relevant decision maker, in accordance with the council’s petition arrangements:

a)   Councillor Taylor regarding parking restrictions on Manor Drive South. ¹

b)   Councillor Orrell regarding a signal-controlled pedestrian and cycle crossing on New Lane, Huntington.²

To receive and consider a written report from the Leader on the work of the Executive.

A written report was received from Councillor Douglas, Leader of the Council, on the work of the Executive.

Councillor Douglas joined the Deputy Lord Mayor in paying tribute to former Councillor Eurig Thomas and the Duchess of Kent.

Councillor Douglas made a statement on the recent flag activity in the city, acknowledging concerns raised during the public participation item. She stated that since August the values of the city had been challenged, the flags put up on council lampposts were there illegally, there were safety issues and to the money spent to remove them was taxpayers’ money that could not then be spent providing other services. Those individuals putting up flags were driving division, not patriotism. The city would take a zero-tolerance approach and stand united in their values.

Councillors Ayre and Steward gave their support to the Leader in condemning the recent rise in hate crime.

(7:30-7:41 pm, the meeting adjourned.)

To question the Leader and/or Executive Members in respect of any matter within their portfolio responsibility, in accordance with Standing Order B8.

Members were invited to question the Leader or Executive Members.  Questions were received from the floor from the following Members, and replied to as indicated:

Questions to Councillor Ravilious, Executive Member for Transport

Funding for dualling the outer ring road

From Councillor Widdowson: It’s become clear that the failure to secure funds for the government to dual the outer ring road as promised is due to a breakdown in communication between the council and the government. Who exactly is to blame for this? The council for not communicating the increased costs, the York Outer MP or the North Yorkshire Mayor for not lobbying the Government effectively or the Government for not providing the funding?

Response: I think we understand the situation differently, there has not been a failure in communication, at the time everyone involved in lobbying for funding did not know the full cost of the project. We have achieved receiving funding for the original estimated cost, and we will now move forward in phases as planned. We have a new head of projects, who has come from National Highways and is well placed to bring the project forward at pace. We are working through those procurement packages, the legal and design and are engaging with the DfT on the funding and transferring that over. FOI requests are further slowing down officers, if there are anything specific around the funding, I am happy to look into those questions for you but I don’t see it from the same angle as you.

Supplementary from Councillor Widdowson: That doesn’t really answer my question, Labour controls all levels of government, the government have announced they are funding the dualling in full, but they are not. It’s obvious there has been a breakdown in communication that no amount of obfuscation or gas lighting hide, who should the residents who are consigned to spending hours in congestion hold accountable?

Response:  As I’ve said, there’s been no disastrous breakdown in communication, we asked for funding for dualling the outer ring road, the ask was based on previous estimates, the lobbying was going on simultaneously, we were successful in obtaining the funding because of the lobbying, residents will see those benefits start to emerge as quickly as possible, we are moving forward with the parts that will bring the greatest benefit and unlock housing development opportunities, residents will see those benefits soon.

Supplementary from Councillor Ayre: The government and the York Outer MP have said unequivocally that they have funded the full dualling, and you’re saying there isn’t.  How can that not be a failure in communication, when you’re saying completely the opposite?

Response: We asked for funding based on the original cost of the ring road. That’s the funding we’ve got.

20mph speed limit in Bishopthorpe

From Councillor Nicholls: First of all, thank you for consulting widely with Bishopthorpe residents and agreeing the 20mph speed limit. Is there any possibility of bringing in a weight limit on lorries going past schools morning and afternoons?  ...  view the full minutes text for item 35.

To receive a report from Councillor Fenton, Chair of the Corporate Scrutiny Committee, on the work of Scrutiny.

A report was received from Councillor Fenton, Chair of the Corporate Scrutiny Committee, on the work of the Committee.

To receive and consider for approval the recommendation of the Audit and Governance Committee, as set out in the attached draft Part B minute. 

Council received a report which presented the recommendations of the Audit and Governance Committee from its meeting held on 3 September 2025, as contained in the reports set out in the Council agenda at items 10a, Constitutional Changes – Updated Contract Procedure Rules and Planning Committee Changes and 10b, Executive / Scrutiny Protocol for City of York Council, and found at minute 23 of September’s meeting. Councillor Jane Burton moved, and Councillor Crawshaw seconded the recommendations.

Councillor Fenton moved an amendment from the floor, relating to Item 10b, paragraph 13.1, explaining that, due to an oversight, the wording at paragraph 13.1 did not reflect the new scrutiny arrangements in relation to task and finish groups. He asked Council to accept the following wording:

“Task groups will be formed to undertake a specific scrutiny review in accordance with the powers conferred by section 21 of the Local Government Act 2001 and will include at least one member of the initiating scrutiny committee. Where possible, task groups will be politically proportionate and aim to have a quoracy membership.”

(20:23, Councillor Warters left the meeting.)

Councillor Merrett formally seconded the proposal and members voted unanimously to accept the amendment as set out above.

Members were invited to debate the Audit and Governance recommendations.

Councillor Hollyer spoke in relation to Item 10a, Planning Committee Changes, he questioned the reasons given for bringing forward the changes, stating that removing committee decisions would lead to a lack of public trust and a loss of democratic accountability. He called on members to reject the proposals and stated that it was pointless to decide delegations only for the government to impose a new set in a few months. 

Councillor Vassie also spoke in relation to Item 10a, Planning Committee Changes.  Following a point of order made by Councillor Nelson the Monitoring Officer advised members that their comments should not be defamatory and should not attack officers.  

Councillor Steward commented on Item 10b, Executive/Scrutiny Protocol for City of York Council, noting that the Conservatives were invited to be on all task and finish groups which was over and above the proportional approach referenced in the protocol. He welcomed this approach and suggested that the protocol was reworded to reflect the politically balanced approach currently taken. In relation to item 10a, he stated that the bar of 40 houses was too high, especially for rural areas, and constitutional changes should be decided cross-party. Councillor Rose raised a point of order and clarified what he had said at Audit and Governance, in relation to the Conservatives attendance at that meeting.

Councillor Pavlovic, Executive Member for Housing, Planning and Safer Communities, spoke on item 10a, stating that the administration was not acting prematurely, and that Parish Councils were consulted on applications and this would continue.  The planning process needed to be ready to respond to the increase in applications and to be able to determine the applications within the timeframe set out by the planning authority.

Councillor Fisher also commented on item  ...  view the full minutes text for item 37.

Members will consider the updated Contract Procedure Rules and proposed constitutional changes to the Planning Committees.

This item was considered as part of agenda item 10, Recommendations of the Audit and Governance from the meeting held on 3 September 2025, as minuted at minute 36 above. ¹

Members will consider the proposed revision to Article 8 of the Council’s Constitution to incorporate the Executive/Scrutiny Protocol for City of York Council.

This item was considered as part of agenda item 10, Recommendations of the Audit and Governance from the meeting held on 3 September 2025, as minuted at minute 36 above. ²

(9:00 - 9:13 pm, the meeting adjourned)

Members will consider the Council’s approach to publishing Member’s addresses.

The Chair advised members that the guillotine would fall at 9:40 pm, and the meeting would close at 9:50pm.

Council received a report which presented the Council’s proposed approach to the publication of Members home addresses on their Register of Interests. Councillor Douglas moved, and Councillor Kilbane seconded, the following recommendation contained in the report:

“To agree that all Members’ home addresses will be treated as sensitive and only the electoral division in which they live will be published unless a member opts to have their home address published, in accordance with option (c), an ‘opt-out’ approach.”

During the debate, in response to questions from Members, the Monitoring Officer advised that any address connected with a member would be redacted. Any interest in a property should be declared on the register of interests, this would then be redacted prior to publication.

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

Resolved:That the above recommendation be approved.¹

Reason: In the interests of enhancing the safety and security of Members, whilst still allowing individual member choice.

To consider the appointments and changes to membership of committees and outside bodies set out on the list attached to this summons.

Councillor Ayre called for a separate vote on the CYC-nominated Director appointment to Explore York Libraries and Archives Mutual Limited.

Councillor Smalley paid tribute to the outgoing Director and asked that the leader convey member’s thanks for his service. 

Following debate, the Monitoring Officer advised that the appointments for the Health and Wellbeing Board and York Museums Trust were group nominations and as such could not be voted upon.

The appointment to Explore York Libraries and Archives Mutual Limited was put to a vote, this was declared CARRIED and it was

Resolved:
        

i.               That Owen Trotter be appointed as CYC-nominated Director.¹

ii.             That the first and third appointments, set out in the agenda papers at page 179, be noted.²

                i.          From Cllr Steward

Planning Process Improvements

“Council believes with York now having a Local Plan and set to deliver much needed homes it is more important than ever that the planning system works with residents for residents, and it does not believe this is how many residents currently feel it to be the case.

Council notes there are set to be changes nationally in planning process and elsewhere on the agenda likely to be changes to committee working in York.

Council calls for a cross-party group to be set up to look at improvements to the planning and specifically the S106 process including the following:

·       A review of outstanding S106 money and the plans to spend it (and absolutely ensure any risk of it needing to return it to developers is minimised)

·       Improving the process of ensuring all consultees respond to S106 enquiries (noting for example a notable number of large applications which have received no NHS response)

·       Creating a system for ward members to be consulted on S106 agreements

·       Ensuring the monitoring of S106 agreements is rigorous and breaches are swiftly acted upon.”

               ii.          From Cllr Healey

Fair Funding for York

“Council notes that:

·       The Government’s Fair Funding 2.0 consultation proposed major changes to the way local government funding is distributed, including a proposal to fully include the impact of mandatory discounts and exemptions in the measure of taxbase, which has not been updated since 2013/14

·       In the Council’s official response, it has warned that the new funding model could increase York’s existing three-year budget gap by an additional £15 million.

·       The Council also raised concerns that the new model risks locking the city into a position at the bottom of the funding league table

·       When asked at Full Council on 17 July about representations made on York’s behalf, the Leader said “It is really hard to see exactly where we can lobby to have a positive impact for the benefit of York.”

Council believes that:

·       The Government’s proposed changes, if implemented unamended, would leave York taxpayers paying more while getting less in return

·       Local government finance must be based on fairness and need, not a system which unfairly punishes York

·       It would have been desirable for the council’s response to the Fair Funding consultation to have been informed by input from Scrutiny

·       Students deserve access to high-quality public services and should continue to benefit from the Class N Council Tax exemption. Local authorities with large student populations, however, should not have to disproportionately bear the cost of this exemption and any new or revised funding arrangements arising from the Fair Funding consultation must reflect this

·       York’s funding settlement from Government must include granular detail demonstrating how the value of the Class N exemption has been accounted for

·       Although the Council has no unilateral power to impose one, a Council Tax increase above the current 4.99% ceiling would hit residents hard at a time when many are already struggling with the cost-of-living crisis

·       The council administration must do  ...  view the full agenda text for item 40.

               i.         Planning Process Improvements

Moved by Councillor Steward and seconded by Councillor Nicholls:

“Council believes with York now having a Local Plan and set to deliver much needed homes it is more important than ever that the planning system works with residents for residents, and it does not believe this is how many residents currently feel it to be the case.

Council notes there are set to be changes nationally in planning process and elsewhere on the agenda likely to be changes to committee working in York.

Council calls for a cross-party group to be set up to look at improvements to the planning and specifically the S106 process including the following:

·      A review of outstanding S106 money and the plans to spend it (and absolutely ensure any risk of it needing to return it to developers is minimised)

·      Improving the process of ensuring all consultees respond to S106 enquiries (noting for example a notable number of large applications which have received no NHS response)

·      Creating a system for ward members to be consulted on S106 agreements

·      Ensuring the monitoring of S106 agreements is rigorous and breaches are swiftly acted upon.”

Councillor Ben Burton then moved, and Councillor Pavlovic seconded, an amendment to the above motion, as follows:

“Under ‘Council calls for’ to the first bullet point add ‘share details and discuss the existing and delete the word A.

To the third bullet point, after ‘ward members to’ add ‘identify their ward priorities in the different categories of s106 contributions (in which there is discretion i.e. not education, early years places etc) to inform officers when drafting’, delete ‘be consulted upon’.

Add a fifth bullet point:

·      ‘Ensuring that the monies received are spent as promptly as possible to deliver the mitigations / benefits they are for, and that there is a clear monitoring system for this.’

During the above debate, the Chair advised that the guillotine had fallen. Councillor Ayre moved, under section 9.3, that members take the extra 30 mins and remove the guillotine, the Chair advised that the deadline had passed to do this. Councillor Ayre then moved to suspend the Standing Order that referred to the time period within which the guillotine could be suspended, this was seconded by Cllr Healey. 

Point of order from Councillor Nelson: The Chair had earlier given both the time the guillotine would fall and the time the meeting would close.

Members voted against the motion to suspend the standing order.

Returning to the motion on notice, on being put to the vote, the amendment was declared CARRIED and it was

Resolved: That the above motion as amended be approved.¹

The two remaining motions were dealt with under Standing Orders and were deemed to have been moved and seconded.

             ii.         Fair Funding for York submitted by Councillor Healey

“Council notes that:

·      The Government’s Fair Funding 2.0 consultation proposed major changes to the way local government funding is distributed, including a proposal to fully include the impact of mandatory discounts and exemptions  ...  view the full minutes text for item 40.