Agenda and minutes

At this point Members are asked to declare any personal, prejudicial  or disclosable pecuniary interests they may have in the business on this agenda.

Members were invited to declare at this point in the meeting any personal, prejudicial or disclosable pecuniary interests they might have in the business on the agenda.

The following prejudicial interest was declared:

Note:The above member left the room during the debate / vote on the relevant items and took no part in the decisions thereon.

The following personal interests were declared:

To consider the exclusion of the press and public from the meeting during consideration of the following:

Annexes 2 and 3 to agenda item 7, relating to Cabinet Minute 33, (Sale of the Hungate Site) and Annex 2 to agenda item 7 , relating to Cabinet Minute 34, (Admin Accommodation Portfolio) on the grounds that they contain information relating to the financial or business affairs of particular persons.  This information is classed as exempt under paragraph 3 of Schedule 12A to Section 100A of the Local Government Act 1972 (as revised by The Local Government (Access to Information) (Variation) Order 2006).

Annex 4 to agenda item 7, relating to Cabinet Minute 33, (Sale of the Hungate Site) on the grounds that it contains information in respect of which a claim to legal professional privilege could be maintained in legal proceedings.  This information is classed as exempt under paragraph 5 of Schedule 12A to Section 100A of the Local Government Act 1972 (as revised by The Local Government (Access to Information) (Variation) Order 2006).

RESOLVED:       That the press and public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of Annexes 2, 3 and 4 to Agenda Item 7 relating to the Cabinet’s recommendations on the Sale of the Hungate Site and Annex 2, also at Agenda Item 7 relating to the Cabinet’s recommendations on the Admin Accommodation Portfolio on the grounds that they contain information relating to the financial or business affairs of particular persons, which is classed as exempt under paragraph 3 and as Annex 4 contains information in respect of which a claim to legal professional privilege could be maintained in legal proceedings, which is classed as exempt under paragraph 5 of Schedule 12A to Section 100A of the Local Government Act 1972 (as revised by The Local Government (Access to Information) (Variation) Order 2006.

To approve and sign the minutes of the last Council meeting held on 12 July 2012.

RESOLVED:       That the minutes of the last Ordinary meeting of the Council held on 12 July 2012 be approved and signed as a correct record.

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

The Lord Mayor confirmed that, prior to the next Council meeting on 13 December, there would be a Special Meeting to confer ‘Freedom of Entry to the City” to the 34 Field Hospital.

The Lord Mayor also proudly reported receipt of the framed certificate for this year’s Council’s Yorkshire in Bloom Gold Award in the City Category.  He asked all Members to join him in formally congratulating everyone involved in the achievement and showing their appreciation for the hard work involved.

Members were also informed of three pictures all recently presented to the Lord Mayor, the first on behalf of HMS York following its decommissioning last month, the second from the Third Yorkshire Regiment presented following their parade in July and the third a York 800 watercolour picture containing gold and silver leaf painted by Ron Plumpton of Copmanthorpe.

Finally, on Members behalf he asked that best wishes be forwarded to Councillor Jeffries for a speed recovery following her recent illness.

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 10 October 2012.

The Lord Mayor announced that six members of the public had registered to speak at the meeting.

Wilson Clark spoke in support of the petition to be presented, later in the meeting, requesting speed restrictions on the A19 at Deighton. He referred to the alarming increase in traffic on the A19 generated by the Designer Outlet and Park and Ride sites with more expected following proposed developments in Barlby and the North Selby anaerobic digestion plant. Residents of the village were requesting a 40mph speed limit and safe access/egress to the A19 for pedestrians, bus users, motorists and cyclists.

Tony Bramley also spoke in support of the petition requesting speed restrictions on the A19 at Deighton. He referred to 80% resident support for a 40mph, rather than a 50mph speed limit through the village. The recent fatality on the A19 at Deighton, had involved his son’s girlfriend. She had been trying to cross the road which had, at the time, been dark as the bus stop lighting had been out of action for a number of months. He requested member support for a lower speed restriction in the area, with improved lighting, to ensure residents were able to safely cross the road.

Richard Bridge spoke on the Council Tax Benefit reform, the forthcoming legislation which would target the poorest in society. He referred to the number of current tax benefit claims which also included a number of residents in work. Reference was made to other options available as those targeted had also received other cuts in income which would mean they had to make a choice between eating and heating. He therefore asked members to consult on alternative options when considering the localisation of Council Tax benefits.

Valerie Bedford spoke in support of the petition, to be presented later in the meeting by Councillor Cuthbertson, regarding traffic issues at Calf Close, Haxby. She pointed out that Calf Close had once been a peaceful road popular with young families and the elderly, close to a sports field. However in 2009 the road had become a short cut from Station Road to York Road with incidences of speeding vehicles and cars hitting kerbs and walls raising residents concerns over safety. Petitioners were requesting that Calf Close should either be made a ‘no through road’ or a 20mph zone.   

Sarah Hodgson also spoke in support of the petition regarding traffic issues at Calf Close, Haxby. She confirmed that residents were requesting safety measures that would ensure children and vulnerable residents had safe access to the Ethel Ward Playing Fields. Reference was made to the regular need to contact Police and PCO’s following the use of the road as a racing circuit. Residents were requesting action to prevent Calf Close being used as a short cut and to limit vehicles to safe speeds.

Jim Begley spoke in support of a petition to be presented by Councillor Scott, later in the meeting, regarding traffic issues on The Avenue/Westminster Road, Clifton. Mr Begley thanked members for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 34.

To consider any petitions received from Members in accordance with Standing Order No.7.  To date, notice has been received of four petitions as follows:

·        A petition to be presented by Cllr Barton on behalf of residents of The Ruddings, Wheldrake requesting resurfacing of their road.

·        A petition to be presented by Cllr Barton on behalf of the  A19/Deighton Speed Restriction Group.

·        A petition to be presented by Cllr Brooks on behalf of residents of Dunnington asking that litter bins that were removed in the summer be replaced.

·        A petition to be presented by Cllr Cuthbertson on behalf of residents of Haxby regarding traffic issues in Calf Close, Haxby.

Petitions Presented Under Standing Order 7

Under Standing Order 7, petitions were presented by:

i)             Cllr Barton on behalf of residents of The Ruddings, Wheldrake requesting resurfacing of their road. ^1.

ii)            Cllr Barton on behalf of the A19/Deighton Speed Restriction Group requesting a 40mph speed limit through the village. ^2.

iii)          Cllr Brooks on behalf of residents of Dunnington asking that litter bins removed in the summer be replaced. ^3.

iv)          Cllr Cuthbertson on behalf of residents of Haxby requesting action to improve traffic issues on Calf Close, Haxby. ^4.

v)           Cllr Cunningham-Cross on behalf of residents of Skelton calling for faster broadband provision for the village. ^5.

vi)          Cllr Scott on behalf of residents of The Avenue and Westminster Road requesting action in relation to traffic issues that were being experienced. ^6.

vii)         Cllr Aspden on behalf of residents in Dringhouses and Woodthorpe, Dunnington and Fulford, Huntington and New Earswick and other areas asking for the Council to return the litter and dog bins removed over the summer.^7.

viii)       Cllr Orrell on behalf of residents in Huntington concerned that changes to the Number 5 bus service had made it unreliable and calling on First to review and improve the service for local residents. ^8.

ix)      Cllr Reid on behalf of residents concerned about the reliability of the Number 12 bus service in Woodthorpe and requesting improvements to the route and timings. ^9.

x)           Cllr Brooks on behalf of residents of Holtby asking that the Vehicle Activated Sign that was removed last year be relocated in the village. ^10.

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:

[Copies of these draft minutes, marked to follow, together with the confidential annexes to these reports have now been added to this agenda.]                  

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 six questions on the written report,  submitted by Members in accordance with Standing Orders. The first five questions were put and answered as follows and Cllr Alexander undertook to provide Members with written answers to the remaining questions:

i)                From Cllr Runciman: “While the report mentions the inward investment of Hiscox, it fails to mention the predicted loss of 160 jobs in York through the closure of the Royal Mail sorting office and the loss of the York postmark. Could the Cabinet Leader outline what representations he made on these issues?”

The Leader replied:

This issue has been a sad one over many years. I recall debates about it in this chamber before the general election. My representations were made through Hugh Bayley and the CWU who have been heavily involved in this issue from the beginning. I do not believe the current or last government has been fair to Royal Mail and I have previously pledged to stand up for Royal Mail remaining in public hands.

ii)           From Cllr Ayre: “Could the Leader outline what additional borrowing the Council will incur as a result of the deal to sell the Hungate site?”

The Leader replied:

I would like to refer you to paragraph 22 on page 25 of the October Cabinet agenda. It said

“The financing cost of the total current borrowing (the £3.77m) is currently being met from the Council’s treasury management budget, prior to the receipt for the land. In receiving a lower capital receipt than assumed, there is no immediate additional cost, given the borrowing has in effect already taken place. The capital receipt will actually improve the Council’s overall debt position in the short term”.

This figure is taken into account in the £190m capital programme as outlined in performance monitor 1. There is no impact on short term borrowing. Long term the impact is £1.6m.

However it makes sense to pursue this deal. The office and hotel complex will create 600 jobs and great £42m GVA.  I also welcome the comments sent by your Group which welcomed the job creation this sale will bring.

Not only does this sale create jobs and GVA, it also progresses a prime site in our city centre which this council wrote off £1.1m on in an abortive council office transfer scheme in 2009.

iii)      From Cllr Runciman: “Could the Leader outline the proposed timetable for implementing the living wage as proposed in the Liberal Democrat budget and the Fairness Commission’s recommendations?”

The Leader replied:

At the moment I cannot. We are currently working through the implications, timescales and negotiations required. This isn't something that can be implemented instantly due to negotiations required with trade unions and implications on terms and conditions as well as possible pay claims for more senior staff. The Liberal Democrat proposed budget amendment was unsustainable and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 36.

To consider the following recommendations for approval from the Joint Standards Committee:

Councillor Runciman, as Chair of the Joint Standards Committee, confirmed that three interviews had been held for the appointment of independent persons to sit on the Joint Standards Committee, following the implementation of the new standards arrangements. One offer had now been made however, it had not been possible to confirm the appointment with the successful candidate prior to the meeting. It was confirmed that any confirmation would be reported to the December Council meeting.

RESOLVED:       That Council note the update on the appointment of Independent Persons to sit on the Joint Standards Committee.

To receive a report from Councillor Wiseman, 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 29 to 34, on the work of the Committee.

Councillor Runciman then moved and Cllr Steward seconded acceptance of the report and it was

RESOLVED:                That the scrutiny report be received and noted.

To consider the final report and recommendations of the Independent Remuneration Panel in relation to Members allowances and reimbursements.

Councillor Alexander, presented the report and recommendations of the Independent Remuneration Panel in relation to Members’ allowances and reimbursements, namely:

“That:

(1)        Council adopt an appropriately amended scheme of allowances , having had regard to the recommendations of the IRP ;

 (2)   The Director of Customer and Business Support  Services be authorised to implement any changes agreed to the current scheme from an agreed date; and

(3)    The Monitoring Officer be authorised to make and report any arising constitutional changes.”

Cllr Alexander then moved, and Cllr Gillies seconded, the following amendment to the motion, as circulated in the additional papers circulated around the chamber: 

“That Council appreciates the recommendations of the Panel in their report but, having had regard to those recommendations, it rejects them at this time and retains the existing Scheme of Allowances for Members.”

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

RESOLVED:       That the above motion in respect of the report of the Independent Remuneration Panel be approved.

To receive a written report from the Cabinet Member for Planning, Transport 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 Cllr Merrett, Cabinet Member for Transport, Planning and Sustainability.

Notice had been received of fourteen questions on the report, submitted by Members in accordance with Standing Orders. The first ten questions were put and answered as follows and Members agreed to receive written answers to their remaining questions, as set out below:

(i)           From Cllr Reid:

“The Cabinet member refers under LTP3 to “a step change in bus services” in the City. Would he therefore publish:

a)   The results, on a service by service basis, of any mystery traveller type checks on punctuality undertaken during the last 18 months.”

Cabinet Member replied:
“A majority of the bus routes in York are neither commissioned or funded by City of York Council. Any punctuality information shared with the Council is currently confidential and for the specific purpose of seeking to identify and improve key areas of delay. As part of the proposed review and re-launch of York’s Quality Bus Partnership, the Council will seek to establish agreement on a means by which the public dissemination of reliability data might be achieved.”

b)   Any information provided by bus operators on the punctuality of services operated under Council contracts”

Cabinet Member replied:

“I will look into this, but it would be best if this was done as part of a comprehensive arrangement covering all York’s bus services in an established and agreed format.”

(ii)          From Cllr D'Agorne:

“Please can Cllr Merrett explain "a Low Carbon Investment Pipeline"? When will this result in investment in renewable energy in buildings in the city?”

Cabinet Member replied:

“York’s Low Carbon Investment Pipeline links to a wider piece of work taking place at a Leeds City Region level. The purpose is to develop a portfolio of low carbon / renewable energy projects across the LCR that demonstrate the investment opportunities to the investment community and ensure the region and York is well placed, as the Leader has just indicated in other areas, to respond quickly and effectively to appropriate funding opportunities when the arise. York’s Low Carbon Investment Pipeline sets out those projects & opportunities that represent investment opportunities in York e.g. renewable heat in off-gas social housing areas of the City; detailed feasibility studies to determine the appropriateness of heat networks in defined locations across York (for example a cluster to the south-east of the City centred on the University of York, or York Central).

While the low carbon / renewable energy projects have been broadly identified, to develop them any further requires both initial / detailed feasibility and technical and financial assessments. Delivery will also depend on actual development opportunities, and putting together the necessary funding packages. As a result a defined timeframe cannot be associated with any of the projects identified through the Low Carbon Investment Pipeline.”

(iii)     From Cllr Reid: 

“Will the Cabinet member agree to publish, possibly through the new “i-travel York website” that he describes in his report, the number of “All  ...  view the full minutes text for item 40.

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://modgov.york.gov.uk/mgListOutsideBodies.aspx?bcr=1

 Copies may also be obtained by contacting Democracy Support Group at the Guildhall, York (tel. 01904 551088)

·        Fire Authority – 20 June 2012

·        Police Authority – 25 June 2012

·        Safer York Partnerships – 9 August 2012

·        Local Government North Yorkshire & York – 12 July 2012

·        Without Walls – 21 May 2012

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:

·        Fire Authority – 20 June 2012

·        Police Authority – 25 June 2012

·        Safer York Partnerships – 9 August 2012

·        Local Government North Yorkshire & York – 12 July 2012

·        Without Walls – 21 May 2012

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 Simpson-Laing

“The City of York Council is concerned over the recent announcement that will allow household extensions, through Permitted Development Rights, to double in size without the need for Planning Consent

Council is concerned about the detrimental effect such large extensions could have on neighbours and neighbourhoods.

Council requests that Government undertake an extensive consultation on the extensions of Permitted Development Rights

Council requests that the Director of City and Environment bring forward proposals for an ‘Article Four Direction’, to limit the size of Household extensions not requiring Planning Consent, if the Government presses ahead with the proposed changes.”

 (ii)     From Cllr Galvin

“Council believes in these difficult economic times, caused by the previous Labour government’s financial incompetence, that the priority must be to protect both the vulnerable and residents’ most basic council services.  Council therefore pledges:

1.      To restock and to maintain all existing salt bins throughout the coming winter: and

2.      To rule out any additional charges to residents for the provision and removal of green waste bins for the remainder of this council. 

The costs associated with these commitments, approximately £34k  will be met by reallocating from the Economic Infrastructure Fund, £34,000 from New Homes Bonus funds for 12/13 and, from 13/14, by reducing the cost of Union support by the same sum”

 (iii)    From Cllr Reid

Council Notes:

Councillor Sonja Crisp’s promise to Full Council in March that “all the salt bins required across all wards will be refilled from the core budget”.

The decision taken last month by Councillor David Levene, Cabinet Member for Environmental Services, not to refill the 170 salt bins previously maintained through funding provided via ward committees.

Cuts and changes to the ward committee budgets now prevent these decisions being addressed at ward level.

Council believes:

•        The plans to reduce overall salt bin provision in York from around 369 full bins to around 199 will, in a bad winter, have a significant and detrimental impact.

•        Leaving the bins out empty is likely to lead to a further deterioration in their condition and make it harder to bring them back into use next winter.

•        Public confusion is likely as residents will not know which salt bins are full and which salt bins are empty until they need to use them.

•        The decision to cut provision before the promised review of salt bin locations for the winter of 2013/14 is misguided, as is the decision not to consult local residents or local councillors.

•        The mistakes Labour made over the removal of 1-in-4 of York’s dog and litter bins are being repeated.

Council calls on Councillor Levene to reverse his decision and refill all salt bins for this winter pending a  ...  view the full agenda text for item 42.

(i)      Permitted Development Rights

It was moved by Cllr Simpson-Laing and seconded by Cllr Merrett that:

“The City of York Council is concerned over the recent announcement that will allow household extensions, through Permitted Development Rights, to double in size without the need for Planning Consent

Council is concerned about the detrimental effect such large extensions could have on neighbours and neighbourhoods.

Council requests that Government undertake an extensive consultation on the extensions of Permitted Development Rights. ^1.

Council requests that the Director of City and Environment bring forward proposals for an ‘Article Four Direction’, to limit the size of Household extensions not requiring Planning Consent, if the Government presses ahead with the proposed changes.” ^2.

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

RESOLVED:       That the above motion be approved.

 (ii)     Salt and Green Waste Bins

It was moved by Cllr Galvin and seconded by Cllr Steward that:

“Council believes in these difficult economic times, caused by the previous Labour government’s financial incompetence, that the priority must be to protect both the vulnerable and residents’ most basic council services.  Council therefore pledges:

1.      To restock and to maintain all existing salt bins throughout the coming winter: and

2.      To rule out any additional charges to residents for the provision and removal of green waste bins for the remainder of this council. 

The costs associated with these commitments, approximately £34k will be met by reallocating from the Economic Infrastructure Fund, £34,000 from New Homes Bonus funds for 12/13 and, from 13/14, by reducing the cost of Union support by the same sum”

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

RESOLVED:       That the above motion be not approved.

 (iii)    Salt Bins

In accordance with his powers under Standing Orders, the Lord Mayor ruled the following motion, which had been submitted by Cllr Reid, out of order as it also related to the refilling of salt bins and substantially repeated the previous motion debated in Cllr Galvin’s name:

“Council Notes:

Councillor Sonja Crisp’s promise to Full Council in March that “all the salt bins required across all wards will be refilled from the core budget”.

The decision taken last month by Councillor David Levene, Cabinet Member for Environmental Services, not to refill the 170 salt bins previously maintained through funding provided via ward committees.

Cuts and changes to the ward committee budgets now prevent these decisions being addressed at ward level.

Council believes:

•        The plans to reduce overall salt bin provision in York from around 369 full bins to around 199 will, in a bad winter, have a significant and detrimental impact.

•        Leaving the bins out empty is likely to lead to a further deterioration in their condition and make it harder to bring them back into use next winter.

•        Public confusion is likely as residents will not know which salt bins are full and which salt bins are empty until  ...  view the full minutes text for item 42.

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 Runciman:

“Does the Council Leader agree with Councillor Semlyen, Chair of the Economic & City Development Overview and Scrutiny Committee, that the recent floods prove it would be wrong to invest £3.6 million of public money in the Bonding Warehouse?”

(ii)      To the Cabinet Leader from Cllr Runciman:

“Firstly, I would like to thank those on the ground for their efforts in tackling the recent floods. However, after complaints from members of the public and his own public criticism, will the Council Leader support a full scrutiny review to analyse the response to the floods from City of York Council, Yorkshire Water, the Environment Agency and other relevant organisations?”

(iii)     To the Cabinet Leader from Cllr Reid:

“Could the Council Leader provide an update on the future of the Beckfield Lane site?”

(iv)     To the Cabinet Member for Health, Housing and Adult Social Services from Cllr Doughty:

“In the Adult Social Services Finance Report presented to the Health, Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 12^th September, it detailed a projected Council overspend in excess of £2.6M for the directorate in the current fiscal year. This report detailed where some of the overspend has taken place or is forecast. It indicated that some “mitigating actions have also been identified to help compensate for some of these pressures” and listed some very generalised areas without giving detail.

Can the Cabinet Member please expand on this to give Council a clearer indication as to how the £2.6M overspend will be tackled and which specific areas, if any will be reviewed?”

(v)     To the Cabinet Member for Health, Housing and Adult Social Services from Cllr Doughty:

“The Adult Social Services Finance Report  referred to in my previous question also indicated that the directorate is assessing which 2013/2014 savings proposals can be brought forward. Can the Cabinet Member indicate what these might be at this stage. If not, what timescale can we expect to hear about them?”

(vi)     To the Cabinet Member for  Health, Housing & Adult Social Services from Cllr Barton:

“Excluding the efforts of the various housing associations, can the cabinet member say how many affordable homes have been completed as a result of developer contributions during the period the Labour Administration has been in control?”

(vii)    To the Cabinet Member for Health, Housing and Adult Social Services from Cllr Aspden:

“Could the Cabinet Member update Council on what is happening to the estimated 184 residents in the ‘moderate’ care bracket recently cut by Labour?”

(viii)    To the Cabinet Member for Health, Housing and Adult Social Services from Cllr Reid:

“What has the uptake been for council tenants installing Solar PV (photovoltaic) panels and what impact will this have on national grid capacity?”

(ix)     To the Cabinet Member for Transport, Planning & Sustainability from Cllr D’Agorne:

“Can the Cabinet Member  ...  view the full agenda text for item 43.

Thirty five questions had been submitted to the Cabinet Leader and Cabinet 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 Runciman:

“Does the Council Leader agree with Councillor Semlyen, Chair of the Economic & City Development Overview and Scrutiny Committee, that the recent floods prove it would be wrong to invest £3.6 million of public money in the Bonding Warehouse?”

Reply:

“The 2011 Labour manifesto committed us to expand the creative industries in York and we believe creating a hub for those industries is one way of fulfilling this objective. The plan will provide space for up to 250 small creative businesses and could include the creation of up to 500 jobs.

The Bonding Warehouse has always been a building under serious consideration, and is being considered along with other buildings in the city. Demand for such a hub is three times higher than the supply.

Whether the Bonding Warehouse scheme is chosen or not, some long-term use needs to be found for this important building.  A great deal of flood protection work (tanking) has taken place to prepare the building for future use.”

(ii)      To the Cabinet Leader from Cllr Runciman:

“Firstly, I would like to thank those on the ground for their efforts in tackling the recent floods. However, after complaints from members of the public and his own public criticism, will the Council Leader support a full scrutiny review to analyse the response to the floods from City of York Council, Yorkshire Water, the Environment Agency and other relevant organisations?”

Reply:

“I saw for myself the rapid response of City of York Council, North Yorkshire County Council, the Environment Agency, North Yorkshire Police, Fire and Ambulance services, Yorkshire Water and the Health Protection Agency. I went to Silver Command to thank the staff for their work. My criticism was not of the response but diminishing capital for the Environment Agency to use in securing much needed flood defences. I will soon be meeting with the Environment Agency regarding my concerns.

I would personally welcome any scrutiny review that considers ways in which the council and other agencies can improve the way they do things.  The implication that the joint response was in some way deficient is unfair to the many workers across all organisations, whether back office or on the ground, who did their utmost to ensure residents’ homes were not flooded in what was one of the worst floods York has seen for decades.”

(iii)     To the Cabinet Leader from Cllr Reid:

“Could the Council Leader provide an update on the future of the Beckfield Lane site?”

Reply:

“The site has been earmarked for housing since March 1999 when it transferred in ownership to the Housing Revenue Account (HRA). This use was also stated in the budget papers that went before Council in February.”

(iv)    To the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 43.