Agenda and minutes
PDF 401 KBVenue: The Guildhall, York. View directions
Contact: Fiona Young Principal Democracy Officer
| No. | Item | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Declarations of Interest At this point Members are asked to declare any personal or prejudicial interests they may have in the business on this agenda. Minutes: Members were invited to declare at this point in the meeting any personal or prejudicial 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 Ordinary Council meeting held on 7 April 2011 and the Annual Council meeting held on 26 May 2011. Additional documents: Minutes: RESOLVED: That the minutes of the Ordinary Council meeting held on 7 April 2011 and the Annual Council meeting held on 26 May 2011 be approved and signed by the Chair as a correct record. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Civic Announcements To consider any announcements made by the Lord Mayor in respect of Civic business. Minutes: The Lord Mayor announced that a request had been received from Councillor Watson for this Council to confer the honour of Freedom of Entry to the City upon York’s Normandy Veterans and that he had been advised that this request was likely to be considered by a Special Meeting of Council prior to the meeting on 6 October.
The Lord Mayor then announced that he would be taking part in the Jane Tomlinson 10k “Run for All” event in York on 31 July and would welcome Members support if they would like to sponsor him. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Public Participation 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 29 June 2011. Minutes: The Lord Mayor announced that five members of the public had registered to speak at the meeting. Each was invited to speak for three minutes, in accordance with the Council’s Public Participation Scheme.
Dan Sidley, a member of the Holocaust Memorial Day Steering Group, spoke on behalf of Lilian Black, Chair of the Holocaust Survivors’ Friendship Association and her father Eugene Black, a Holocaust survivor, in support of the proposals in Cllr Alexander’s notice of motion to re-instate funding for Holocaust Memorial Day.
Father Tim Jones, Church of England Parish Priest for St Lawrence’s and St Hilda’s Parish Churches, spoke in support of the proposals in the same notice of motion to re-instate funding for Hull Road Park. He said he had been disappointed by the original proposals to cut back funding for Hull Road Park as it was a facility which made a real difference to local people. He expressed his support for the proposals to reinstate the funding for this park.
Tom Hughes, a member of the Meadlands Area Residents Association, spoke about the Cabinet recommendations to Council on the Local Development Framework. He raised concerns that the Local Development Framework Working Group, and the views of its Members, had not been taken into account, with some meetings of the working group cancelled and none held during the last six months. Furthermore he voiced the opinion that search area B was premature and unwelcome.
Rev Chris Cullwick spoke about the work of Faith groups in the City. He explained that he worked with the Chaplaincy Centre at York University as well as other organisations including the police, the council and local businesses. He stated that the work of the faith community was embedded and was therefore sometimes overlooked but that they played an important role working with groups including the elderly, homeless and the disabled.
Rachel Barber, Community Services Manager at the Salvation Army in York, expanded upon the comments made by Rev Cullwick, with specific reference to the work of the Salvation Army. She explained that the Salvation Army had long supported those people who had been excluded from society, explained their four priorities and their mission to create a community for those who have none and to fight for social injustice where people were oppressed. She stated that in York 13 people are employed in the York Social Action Projects; York Advocacy; Community Support Link; the luncheon club; the Early Intervention and Prevention Team; and Solid Foundations, and that all the teams played an essential role in the support provided by the Salvation Army. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Petitions To consider any petitions received from Members in accordance with Standing Order No.7. To date, no petitions have been received but any received before the appropriate deadline will be reported at the Council meeting. Minutes: Under Standing Order 7 a petition was presented byCllr Boyce, on behalf of residents of John Street, asking for their road to be re-surfaced.
RESOLVED: That the petition be referred to the Cabinet or appropriate committee. 1 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Report of Cabinet Leader and Cabinet Recommendations 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:
Additional documents:
Minutes: A written report was received from the Cabinet Leader, Cllr James Alexander, on the work of the Cabinet.
Notice had been received of five questions on the written report, submitted by Members in accordance with Standing Orders. The first four questions were put and answered as follows:
(i) From Cllr Cuthbertson “If the Cabinet Leader believes York is over reliant on public sector jobs, why he is proposing to put small businesses on Gillygate at risk by selling off Union Terrace car park?”
The Leader replied: “I do not believe the Labour Group’s decision to support expansion of York St John University will put private sector jobs at risk. It will instead create 100 private sector jobs and 100 public sector jobs. It will also act as a catalyst for economic growth. Former Liberal Democrat Councillor Steve Galloway has published on his website that discussions over this scheme began 12 months ago. I was aware of it for many months and I was in opposition. The Liberal Democrats could have said no to the scheme when in office. I am told instead they wanted to wait until after the local election.”
(ii) From Cllr Aspden “Can the Cabinet Leader say when the alternative parking and coach drop off arrangements to replace Union Terrace will be made public?”
The Leader replied: “As soon as the workings of officers are complete. I suspect in the coming weeks.”
(iii) From Cllr Ayre “Has the Cabinet Leader considered the impact that the proposed budget changes will have on next year’s budget?”
The Leader replied: “Yes. £0.6m reduction in council capital borrowing over the two year period. In revenue terms, the added pressure is arguably £140k which is 0.1% of the entire council budget. This takes into account revenue spending commitments for 2011/12 that are one off expenditure and not part of the base budget. I don’t think this is unreasonable considering the previous Liberal Democrat administration left a £0.5m black hole in Property Services and a £0.8m black hole in Housing.”
(iv) From Cllr Cuthbertson “If the Cabinet Leader is proposing to lead York in a new era of social democracy and fairness, how will he employ democracy in implementing the new ‘strong leader’ model and where will the fairness of his leadership style be seen?”
The Leader replied: “I will employ democracy in implementing the ‘strong leader’ model by using the mandate given to my Group in implementing our manifesto pledges, by seeking counsel and also by directly engaging with residents. I do not know of any Group Leader here today or any other Council Leader who makes their mobile number public.
Meaning consultation and fairness will stem not only from the Labour Group’s political values but also from the work of both the Equalities Advisory Group and the soon to be set up, and independently chaired, Fairness Commission.”
The time limit having expired for this item, written answers were circulated after the meeting to the remaining question as follows:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Scrutiny - Report of the Chair of the Scrutiny Management Committee To receive a report from Councillor Galvin, the Chair of the Scrutiny Management Committee (SMC) on the work of scrutiny since the last Council Meeting. Minutes: A written report was received from Cllr John Galvin, the Chair of the Scrutiny Management Committee (SMC) on the work of scrutiny since the last report to Council, on 7 April 2011. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Report of Cabinet Member To receive a written report from the Cabinet Member for Health, Housing & Adult Social Services, 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. Minutes: A written report was received from Cllr Tracey Simpson-Laing, the Cabinet Member for Health, Housing & Adult Social Services.
Notice had been received of five questions on the report, submitted by Members in accordance with Standing Orders. The first four questions were put and answered as follows:
(i) From Cllr Wiseman “I’m pleased the Cabinet Member has reported positively on the Personalisation Agenda, which is a central part of the Government’s patient choice initiative. Could you give us any up to date numbers of how many patients in York have taken up the individual budget option?”
The Cabinet Member replied: “The total number of personal budgets provided by the Council last year was 1,968, or 24.9% of those receiving services. This year, 2011/12, the Council is aiming for a target of 40% of those receiving services receiving personal budgets, which, based on those receiving a service last year, would be 2,725 people. This number will change slightly as the number of residents receiving services has changed and will change on a yearly basis.
I would, however, note that whilst Personalisation
is good for the majority, it may not be suitable for everyone and
this must be remembered when looking at numbers in future
years.” (ii) From Cllr Cuthbertson ”Given that the Cabinet Member has detailed in her report the meetings she has attended, can she explain if there was a reason why she didn't attend the North Yorkshire and York Housing Board meeting on 6th June?”
The Cabinet Member replied:
I was not invited to that meeting which may be a
consequence of our annual council system and nominations going in
late. I was informed the day before so had a briefing with the
officer who was going. I then had another briefing after the
meeting. . (iii) From Cllr Wiseman “You note that good progress has been made in the council’s liaison with the PCT and other health partners. Now that the NHS Listening Exercise is complete, could you tell us what you understand to be the approximate time scale for the handover of PCT responsibilities to GP Commissioning Groups?”
The Cabinet Member replied:
“It is perhaps a decision that will have
consequences, that the NHS Listening Exercise was short in duration
and has not taken the time to truly understand concerns raised and
taken action following those concerns, before further announcements
have been made by the Minister. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Activities of Outside Bodies 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://sql003.york.gov.uk/mgListOutsideBodies.asp?bcr=1 Copies may also be obtained by contacting Democracy Support Group at the Guildhall, York (tel. 01904 551088)
· North Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Authority - meeting on 8 December 2010 · Quality Bus Partnership – meeting on 24 March 2011 · North Yorkshire Police Authority – meeting on 26 May 2011 · Safer York Partnership – meetings on 4 April and 23 May 2011
Members are invited to put any questions to the Council’s representatives on the above bodies, in accordance with Standing Order 10(b). Minutes: Minutes of the following meeting had been made available for Members to view on the Council’s website:
No questions had been submitted to representatives on outside bodies. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Appointments and Changes to Membership To consider the appointments and changes to membership of committees and outside bodies set out on the list attached to this summons. Minutes: RESOLVED: That the appointments to, and changes to membership of, committees, outside bodies and working groups set out in the revised list at page 153 circulated around the Council Chamber (and attached as an annex to these minutes) be approved. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
To consider the following Notices of Motion under Standing Order 12 submitted directly to Council:
(i) From Cllr Alexander
“At February’s Budget Council Meeting, the Labour Group proposed an amendment which would have rejected a number of cuts subsequently agreed by the Liberal Democrat and Conservative Groups, as well as other changes to capital and revenue budgets.
Since taking control of the Council, the Labour Group has produced a revised set of budget amendments, which fulfil its manifesto commitments to the residents of York by reversing just under £1m of these cuts to services that the most vulnerable rely on, and which also take account of the dreadful financial position that the Government has placed this and other local authorities in.
Council is therefore asked to rescind those decisions previously made in setting the Council’s budget in February 2011, where affected, and make the following amendments, as attached (at the end of the agenda papers at page 103).”
[In accordance with Standing Order 13.1 signed by:
Councillors Tracey Simpson-Laing, Dave Merrett, Ruth Potter, Sandy Fraser, Sonja Crisp and Janet Looker]
(ii) From Cllr Galvin
"Council agrees that chairs of all Scrutiny Committees must be from members of the main opposition parties and as such shall indicate which opposition party will chair the scrutiny committees currently chaired by members of the ruling party. Specific nominations from the relevant opposition groups shall be forwarded to Democratic Services for processing and the Monitoring Officer is authorised to confirm the appointments"
(iii) From Cllr Reid
“Council believes that local businesses would be significantly harmed if York were to introduce a unilateral congestion charge. Council believes that such a unilateral charge should be ruled out now in order to give certainty to concerned residents and businesses. Council therefore resolves not to introduce a unilateral congestion charge in York for the duration of this Council and to commit to finding other ways to tackle congestion in the city.”
(iv) From Cllr Simpson-Laing
“Council expresses concern atthe Conservative Liberal Democrat Government’sproposed changes tothe eligibility criteriafor residents who currently accessIncome Support, Income Based JSA, income-related ESA,Working Tax Credit,Child Tax Credit, Disability Living Allowance, HousingBenefit or Council TaxBenefit. Under the proposals,Housing Benefit will be cut to those households deemed to be 'under-occupying' their properties, with the result that many in York will struggle to pay their rent and could end up being forced to leave their home. This situation will be exacerbated by the Government proposing to push rents for social housing up to near market levels from April2011. The introduction of a household benefit cap on the total amount of welfare benefits a claimant or a couple receives, set by reference to the average earnings of working households in England will adversely effect York residents due to higher than regional average rent levels.
The City of
York Council
takes an official position against the changes to Housing
Benefitand requests th Minutes: (i) Budget Amendments
Having sought and received Council’s consent to alter his notice of motion by removing from the associated spreadsheet (page 105 of the agenda refers) the additional funding in the sum of £8.12k to “increase the Conservative political assistant entitlement to full-time etc, Cllr Alexander moved, and Cllr Gunnell seconded, that:
“At February’s Budget Council Meeting, the Labour Group proposed an amendment which would have rejected a number of cuts subsequently agreed by the Liberal Democrat and Conservative Groups, as well as other changes to capital and revenue budgets.
Since taking control of the Council, the Labour Group has produced a revised set of budget amendments, which fulfil its manifesto commitments to the residents of York by reversing just under £1m of these cuts to services that the most vulnerable rely on, and which also take account of the dreadful financial position that the Government has placed this and other local authorities in.
Council is therefore asked to rescind those decisions previously made in setting the Council’s budget in February 2011, where affected, and make the following amendments, as attached (at the end of the agenda papers at page 103).”
[In accordance with Standing Order 13.1 signed by: Councillors Tracey Simpson-Laing, Dave Merrett, Ruth Potter, Sandy Fraser, Sonja Crisp and Janet Looker]
Cllr Healey then moved, and Cllr Gillies seconded, an amendment to the above motion, as follows:
“At the end of the final paragraph, add:- ‘, subject to these amendments being revised as follows:
[In accordance with Standing Order 13.1 signed by: Councillors Ian Gillies, Sian Wiseman, Paul Healey, Joe Watt and Chris Steward]
On being put to the vote, the amendment was declared LOST.
The original motion, as altered, was then put to the vote and declared CARRIED and it was
RESOLVED: That the above notice of motion be approved. 1
At this point in the meeting, the guillotine fell and the remaining motions were moved, seconded and voted on without debate.
(ii) Scrutiny Chairs
It was moved by Cllr Galvin and seconded by Cllr Healey that:
"Council agrees that chairs of all Scrutiny Committees must be from members of the main opposition parties and as such shall indicate which opposition party will chair the scrutiny committees currently chaired by members of the ruling party. Specific nominations from the relevant opposition groups shall be forwarded to Democratic Services for processing and the Monitoring Officer is authorised to confirm the appointments"
On being put to the vote, the motion was declared LOST and it was ... view the full minutes text for item 23. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Questions to the Cabinet Leader and Cabinet Members received under Standing Order 10(c) 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 D’Agorne “Can the Leader say what consultation is taking place with council 'champions' about their future role?”
(ii) To the Cabinet Leader, from Cllr D’Agorne “Can the Leader outline the proposed process and timescale for establishing the 'Fairness Commission', whether it will include representatives from all parties represented on the council and how the voluntary and private sector representatives will be selected?”
(iii) To the Cabinet Leader, from Cllr Ayre “Does the leader believe the workload he inherited from his predecessor was more than he could manage?”
(iv) To the Cabinet Leader, from Cllr Runciman “Can the leader explain what event led to him reversing his position that all scrutiny chairs should belong to opposition councillors?”
(v) To the Cabinet Leader, from Cllr Reid “Does the leader support the current capital programme?”
(vi) To the Cabinet
Leader, from Cllr Runciman
(vii) To the Cabinet Member for Leisure, Culture & Social
Inclusion, from Cllr Aspden
(viii)
To the Cabinet Member for Leisure, Culture & Social Inclusion,
from Cllr Ayre
(ix) To the Cabinet
Member for Leisure, Culture & Social Inclusion, from Cllr
Runciman
(x) To the Cabinet
Member for Leisure, Culture & Social Inclusion, from Cllr
Ayre
(xi) To the Cabinet Member for Health, Housing & Adult Social Services, from Cllr Watt: “In view of the universal expression of opinion in the York Press that you have no understanding of how to achieve York’s affordable housing needs and the failure of the 50% affordable housing policy, would the Cabinet Member explain how she will help both to stimulate local housing construction and achieve York’s affordable housing needs.”
(xii) To the Cabinet Member for Health, Housing & Adult Social Services, from Cllr Healey: “Could the Cabinet member update Council on the track record of Community Energy Solutions in delivering residential solar schemes.”
(xiii)
To the Cabinet Member for Housing and Adult Social Services, from
Cllr Cuthbertson.
(xiv) To the Cabinet Member for Housing and Adult Social Services, from Cllr Aspden “Does the Cabinet Member still support a 50% affordable housing target and does she agree with the Council Leader that targets should be reduced ... view the full agenda text for item 24. Minutes: Twenty-two questions had been submitted to the Executive Leader and Executive Members 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 D’Agorne “Can the Leader say what consultation is taking place with council 'champions' about their future role?”
Reply None so far as the review has not begun but Group Leaders will all be consulted on the future of champions and also committee structure.
(ii) To the Cabinet Leader, from Cllr D’Agorne “Can the Leader outline the proposed process and timescale for establishing the 'Fairness Commission', whether it will include representatives from all parties represented on the council and how the voluntary and private sector representatives will be selected?”
Reply provided verbally to Cllr D’Agorne at the meeting.
(iii) To the Cabinet Leader, from Cllr Ayre “Does the Leader believe the workload he inherited from his predecessor was more than he could manage?”
Reply Not at all, but I think my predecessor did not handle his workload well. If he had done so, he may not have lost his seat at the local elections. I believe what Councillor Ayre is alluding to is that by sticking to a Labour manifesto pledge of creating a new Cabinet Member for Crime and Anti-Social Behaviour, that this reduces the remit of the Council Leader. This isn’t the case, but it does allow me to devote my time to promoting economic growth and job creation, a top priority for the Labour administration and not something my predecessor was very good at. It also gives this Council a crime focus that it has not had before. The new Cabinet role has been welcomed by the police.
(iv) To the Cabinet Leader, from Cllr Runciman “Can the Leader explain what event led to him reversing his position that all scrutiny chairs should belong to opposition councillors?”
Reply It was not my decision but that of my Group, though I do agree with it. Two main factors played a part. The first is that we have a Group over three times the size of yours and almost three times the main opposition. Therefore we felt that jobs had to be more evenly spread out across Council Members and proportionality was the best way of achieving this on a fair basis. The second reason was that 68% of councils give some chairs to opposition parties but only 4% give them all chairs. In light of this, we felt we should go with the majority view, as it is said to lead to more effective scrutiny, which is the priority. I would also say to Cllr Runciman that effective overview and scrutiny can be carried out by members of any party, and I fully expect scrutiny of Cabinet decision making by all Labour colleagues not on the Cabinet.
(v) To the Cabinet Leader, from Cllr Reid “Does the Leader support the current capital programme?”
Reply ... view the full minutes text for item 24. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
