Local democracy during coronavirus

During coronavirus, we've made some changes to how we're running council meetings. See our coronavirus updates for more information on meetings and decisions.

Agenda and draft minutes

Venue: The Retreat, 107 Heslington Road, York. YO10 5BN

Contact: Claire Taylor 

No. Item


Informal surgery & Refreshments


1.1  Residents had the opportunity to meet and talk with the ward councillors and representatives from the Safer Neighbourhood Team and a representative from the CYC Communities and Equalities Team.



Tour of the Retreat grounds


2.1  A tour of the Retreat grounds was facilitated by David Smith, Director of Development at the Retreat.



Formal meeting - Welcome and Introductions


3.1  The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting and introduced the councillors and officers present. 

3.2  Minutes of the previous formal meeting, held on 18th April 2013, were agreed and signed.



Partner updates


PCSO McLaughlin of the local Safer Neighbourhood Team gave an update upon crime statistics in the ward.  The following points were noted:


4.1  Although Fishergate was regarded as a low crime ward, crime was presently up by 19%.

·        Burglaries were down by 23%.  A number of the previous year’s burglaries were attributed to the same individual, who was currently still in prison.

·        There had been a 300% increase in public order offences (1 incident to 4)

·        Bicycle theft had increased by 81% (11 incidents to 20, 3 of which took place in the past week).  Action was being taken in response to this.

·        Violence was up in Wenlock Terrace.

4.2  PCSO McLaughlin stated that there had been changes to the City & East Teams.  PC Andy Thompson had moved and had been replaced by PC Richard Clifford.


The following questions and comments were noted:


a)   A resident enquired about the statistics  for vandalism/criminal damage. 

Response was given that these were down by 11%.  PCSO McLaughlin informed  the  residents  that unless  reports of  graffiti are made , it is not an official police investigation, however, it is not ignored.  It was noted that graffiti upon benches had been reported.  It was suggested that the best line of action upon seeing graffiti would be to photograph it, and to email it to the Council, who would put it in their database, so that it might be identified and attributed to a serial tagger.  The Council were said to be good at responding to reports of graffiti.


b)   Another resident raised concerns about glass and bottles near the Millennium Field. 

Response was given that this was not a no drinking zone, so it was the littering that posed the problem.  She said that although PCSOs no longer had the power to respond to littering, police would respond to anti-social behaviour.  As this area does not fall into police remit, it should be reported to the Council, who will clear it up and investigate.


c)   Another resident recounted that she had recently received verbal abuse from a litterer, and enquired as to whether the appropriate action, in this situation, would be to call 999 or 101?

Response was that 999 should be dialled only when the offence was happening then and there, and officers were needed immediately.  101 is for use when a crime is not currently happening.




Talk on the history and work of The Retreat


David Smith, gave a talk upon the history and work of The Retreat.  The following points were noted:

5.1  The Retreat occupies a central place in the history of psychiatry. Every textbook on the subject mentions the unique part played by the organisation in the reshaping of attitudes towards people who are mentally ill.

5.2  Opened in 1796 by William Tuke, a retired tea merchant, the original Retreat was intended to be a place where members of The Society of Friends (Quakers) who were experiencing mental distress could come and recover in an environment that would be both familiar and sympathetic to their needs. Some years earlier, a Leeds Quaker, Hannah Mills, had died in the squalid and inhumane conditions that then prevailed in the York Asylum, and appalled at this Tuke and his family vowed that never again should any Quaker be forced to endure such treatment.

5.3  Nowadays The Retreat is a registered charity delivering a number of specialist services, primarily funded by the NHS. These include specialist Eating Disorders and Personality Disorders Units along with Complex Mental Health Care and Specialist Care for Older Adults. Aside from the main hospital, The Retreat also delivers community services from its psychological therapies centre (The Tuke Centre) and a range of educational activities though The Recovery College.

The following questions and comments were noted:

a)   What is the cost of the Retreat’s detox programme? 

David responded that he could not remember off the top of his head, but estimated that it would be £4000 for ten days.  He added that this included funding for a full multi-disciplinary team upon every unit, and that, as the Retreat was a charity, money would go directly into patient care.

b)   How much does the Retreat rely on bequests?

Response was given that the Retreat did not rely upon these, as 98% of patients are funded by the NHS.

c)   How easy is it for an NHS patient to be admitted to the Retreat? 

David said that this was normally quite straightforward.  A GP or primary or secondary mental health worker could make a referral for funding if there was a need for the type of care provided at the Retreat.  The patient would be talked through the process.

d)   Can patients from outside of York be transferred to the Retreat? 

Response was given that theoretically, patients should be able to choose where they went.  If they had a desire to be transferred to a specific venue, then they should talk to their care co-ordinator.  Patients are entitled to free advocacy, in order to ensure that they have a voice.

e)   What percentage of patients admitted to the Retreat are female?

David responded that females made up roughly 60%, which was due to the Retreat’s specialist female units for eating disorders and personality disorder.  He added that there was a huge inequality here, as there is a general need for more male eating disorder care.

f)    At what age is a patient considered  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.


Ward funding


6.1 Feedback was given on the 2013-14 ward funding: 

The ward budget for the 2013-14 financial year was £3280.  At the beginning of the financial year, local community groups had been invited to submit applications for projects which supported the ward priorities of:

·        A safer community, working together.

·        Reduced traffic congestion and increased road safety.

·        Maintenance and enhancement of the quality of the environment.

6.2  It was announced that the budget had been spent in full to support the following community groups and organisations:

·        Friends of Danesmead Wood – received £500 for insurance and equipment costs and £778 for a noticeboard.

·        BAGNARA - received £1052.40 for purchase and installation of two benches in Fenby Field.

·        Friends of Alma Grove Community Garden - received £474 for purchase and installation of bollards to protect the garden from vehicle damage.

·        Friends of Edible York Barbican Beds – received £475 to purchase water butts and gardening tools.


6.3  The budget for the current financial year (2014-15) is £3280, and is to be awarded to community groups in the ward to run projects which support the ward priorities of:


·        A safer community, working together.

·        Reduced traffic congestion and increased road safety.

·        Maintenance and enhancement of the quality of the environment.


6.4  Application packs were available at the meeting, and can also be accessed online or by contacting Claire Taylor on 551810 or c.taylor@york.gov.uk.  The deadline for proposals is 8th August.


6.5  Voluntary groups were encouraged to put forward proposals.  It was emphasised that groups of neighbours are able to get together to bid for something that will be beneficial to the community, as long as it is a properly formatted group. 


6.6  Updates on the ward funding will be given at future residents’ forums.




Fishergate Planning Panel selections


7.1  Planning Panels are made up of local volunteers (ward residents) who come together to discuss and respond to local planning applications.  Planning Panels meet locally usually every 3-4 weeks depending upon the level of local planning applications.  Resident volunteers get involved out of an interest in the built environment and how their area looks and develops into the future.


7.2 Membership of a ward planning panel is through an open selection process at the Annual Residents Forum.  Planning Panels operate to a terms of reference document, copies of which are available at the meeting


7.3  Fishergate has not had an active Planning Panel for the past year and the hope is to re-establish it.  Standing for selection this year are Mike and Pat Wills, and it was asked if anyone else would be interested in joining the panel.  It was stated that it is important that people make comments upon planning, and this requires someone to chair the panel, so if anyone is interested in coming forward for this it would be helpful.  In the past, panels have functioned by having somebody act as clerk in order to liaise with the Council and receive details upon planning applications, which can then be discussed amongst the group.  People from different parts are able to give views – it does need to have some sort of democratic process.


7.4 Mike and Pat Wills were formally selected to start the panel, but it was emphasised that more places would be available, and that if anyone was interested, then they should contact Claire (c.taylor@york.gov.uk).


The following question was noted:


Has planning permission been granted upon a plot where Broadway meets Heslington Lane (near the mini-roundabout), as excavation work had started? 

Response was given that whilst an application had been made to remove a tree in order to provide access, it was believed to have been withdrawn, however this would be confirmed.



Have Your Say


Residents were invited to raise issues and concerns regarding the ward. The following questions and comments were noted:


a)   A resident asked about traffic congestion, having noticed that traffic through Fishergate was often backed up at Kent Street all the way through into town on some evenings, but was clear on other evenings, and asked what might be the cause of this.  They raised concerns about the pollution caused by slow-moving traffic.  Response was given that this is thought to be related to the “butterfly theory”, whereby a combination of different events causes crunches, and therefore it is difficult to pinpoint a specific cause.  It has been suggested that congestion upon the A19 might be caused by differing lights upon Hospital Fields Road.  It was also stated that the area outside Fishergate School had been identified as a pollution hotspot, and thus the intention was to hold traffic back so that the pollution could lessen before reaching the school.Councillor D’Agorne  stated that, with regards to pollution upon Fulford Road caused by traffic congestion, the intention was to hold traffic back at Naburn Lane with new traffic lights, in order to give a smoother lane to junctions going into York.  Use of Park & Ride was also hoped to be encouraged.  It was also noted that signals at the Broadway junction were not thought to be working at the correct efficiency, and may have been affected by gasworks.  With regard to Fishergate, the intention was to improve pedestrian access, and to model the impact upon the inner ring road.


b)   A resident asked if the traffic was more difficult to control in the evening.

Councillor Taylor  responded that congestion in the afternoon tended to be most difficult, as it is caused by two lots of traffic coming onto one road from two different directions on the inner ring road.


c)   The Broadway junction traffic light issue was noted as something to continue to chase with the Traffic Management Unit.


d)   It was suggested that parking upon the main street of Fulford tended to slow buses, as buses coming from opposite directions would struggle to pass one another.

An explanation was given of the new “Puffin Crossing” designs.  These were supposedly being developed in response to blind and partially sighted pedestrians, and in order to maximise the efficiency of crossing.  Sensors respond to pedestrians crossing, and the lights will remain at red for an extended (but not indefinite) time if they detect a pedestrian is still using the road.  It was noted that there has been little in the way of education to explain this to the general public.

e)   A resident asked if the part of Foss Islands Road crossing Lawrence Street was considered part of Fishergate. The resident specified that she had asked because she found conditions crossing Lawrence Street to be dangerous to cyclists. 

Response was given that it was not – it runs down Lawrence Street coming to Walmgate.  She was told that this would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.


Back to the top of the page