Agenda and minutes

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.

[Please see attached sheet for further guidance for Members]

Members were asked to declare at this point in the meeting any disclosable pecuniary interest or other registerable interest they might have in respect of business on the agenda, if they had not already done so in advance on the Register of Interests.

Cllr Clarke declared, for transparency reasons, that he had spoken with Spark residents.

Cllr Merrett declared that he had exchanged emails with the Head of Property Services over some of the neighbour nuisance issues and that, in relation to some of the planning applications for the site, he had been involved when he was a member of the Civic Trust Transport Advisory Group.

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

Annex K to Annex B of Agenda Item 5 on the grounds that it contains information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information). 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).

Resolved: That the press and public be excluded from the meeting during any discussion arising on agenda Item 5, Annex K to Annex B, on the grounds that they contained information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information). This information was 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).

At this point in the meeting members of the public who have registered to speak can do so. Members of the public may speak on agenda items or on matters within the remit of the Executive.

Please note that our registration deadlines are set as 2 working days before the meeting, in order to facilitate the management of public participation at our meetings. The deadline for registering at this meeting is 5:00pm on Thursday 30 November 2023.

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 meeting will

be webcast including any registered public speakers who have

given their permission. The meeting can be viewed live and on

demand at www.york.gov.uk/webcasts.

During coronavirus, we made some changes to how we ran

council meetings, including facilitating remote participation by

public speakers. See our updates

(www.york.gov.uk/COVIDDemocracy) for more information on

meetings and decisions.

It was reported that there had been two registrations to speak at the meeting under the Council’s Public Participation Scheme.

Chris Bush from York Business Improvement District (BID) spoke on agenda item 5. He noted that should they support the alternative proposals around the closure of York’s most popular car park, improvements would need to be made to public transport, such as the extension to the operating hours of Park and Ride, and to Coppergate car park in terms of cleaning, repairs and 24 hour opening.  He also recommended improvements to signage to city centre car parks and parking technology and suggested that examples of other cities had driven footfall in their areas following enhanced public realm.

Gwen Swinburn also spoke on agenda item 5 and raised some administrative issues. She raised concerns regarding the executive decision which gave members no options.  She suggested that this be revisited whereby businesses cases, financials, legals, risks and other implications could be examined. She questioned what would be received in place of the projected £20m loss.

To approve and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 2 October 2023.

Resolved:  That the minutes of the last meeting held on 2 October 2023 be approved by the Chair as a correct record subject to including the words ‘by the Executive Members’ to the end of the second sentence in the second bullet point, under, during the process outlined above, it was confirmed that, on page 5 of the agenda pack. The above amendment to minute item 4, Called-In Item: Resolution "X" on Ward Funding from Finance & Performance Monitoring Report would read as follows:

·            A number of different formulas could have been used to calculate ward funding. The choice of formula was different from the one put forward by the Call-In Members but was not considered incorrect by the Executive Members.

This report sets out the reasons for the multiple call-in of the decision made by the Executive on 16 November 2023 in respect of Castle Gateway.  The report also sets out the powers and role of the Corporate Services and Climate Change Scrutiny Management Committee (Calling-In) in dealing with the call-in.

Members considered a report which set out the reasons for the multiple call-in of the decisions made by the Executive on 16 November 2023 in respect of Castle Gateway, along with the committee’s remit and powers in relation to the call-ins.

The relevant decision was contained in the extract from the relevant Decision Sheet at Annex A to the report. The original report to Executive was attached as Annex B, and the decisions had been called in by Councillors Steward, Nicholls and Warters, as well as, Councillors Ayre, Mason and Smalley, thedetailed reasons and alleged constitutional breach for whichwere contained in Annex C (i) and (ii), as follows:

Annex C (i), Cllrs Nicholls, Steward and Warters

Poor project progress highlights the need for cross party working rather than swings dependent on who is in power. Labour has a mandate, but just a one seat majority. Consensus, backed by tangible and sound financial business cases is needed, not hopes. There are big lessons which look unlearnt from the likes of the Community Stadium and Guildhall.

Specifically:

·       Spark was only to be a short lease and if the extension goes through will have been in for essentially a decade, paying well below market rent without sufficient positive overall good to justify this. Serious consideration should be given to other site uses, including a sale. The site is one location in the Piccadilly area, it is not pivotal. If the lease is extended there is no clear plan for after, it is simply a delay.

·       There is insufficient detail to show clear benefit on the return to the council from a generous lease extension to Mahavir Properties (Coppergate Centre).

·       The magnitude of the direction change on St George’s Field Multi Story Car Park has too little analysis given the associated write-offs and impact it would have.

·       The reduction in city centre car parking is unacceptable and will be a real issue for businesses, The reduced car usage hoped for in the Local Transport Plan remains a hope.

·       If city centre parking is cut as proposed there is inadequate planning for the resulting revenue drop.

·       Report, round estimate, figures (e.g. Castle and Eye of York c. £1 million, St George’s MSCP c. £2 million and Castle Mills c. £1 million) provide insufficient depth for members to analyse, never mind time being money and officer time not being tangibly considered.

Castle Gateway area needs development but the report shows little sign of historically poor progress changing, merely further cost. The following is needed:

·       A realistic assessment of what is key to the project, rather than various sites joined together, as well as consideration of the appropriate public/private sector division.

·       Cross party discussion and agreement on the future to truly achieve for York.

·       True, business quality, scrutiny of spend by councillors.

Annex C (ii), Cllrs Ayre, Mason and Smalley

·       In relation to Castle Mills, due regard has not been given to the potential impact of developing the bridge and riverside route separately from the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.