Agenda and minutes

At this point, Members are asked to declare:

·        any personal interests not included on the Register of Interests

·        any prejudicial interests or

·        any disclosable pecuniary interests

which they may have in respect of business on this agenda.

Members were invited to declare, at this point in the meeting, any personal interests, not included on the Register of Interests, or any prejudicial or disclosable pecuniary interests they may have in respect of business on the agenda. No further interests were declared.

It is at this point in the meeting that members of the public who have registered to speak can do so.  The deadline for registering is 5.00pm on Friday 9 August 2013.  Members of the public can speak on agenda items or matters within the remit of the committee.

To register to speak please contact the Democracy Officer for the meeting, on the details at the foot of the agenda.

It was reported that there had been one registration to speak at the meeting under the Council’s Public Participation Scheme and a member of Council had also requested to speak.

Councillor Barton spoke in respect of the Co-operative Council: A Community Benefit Society for Libraries and Archives (Minute 12 refers), referring to the lack of information available when researching community benefit societies in general. Concern was expressed at the proposed removal of the statutory responsibility for libraries from Council control to an untried organisation, privatising a vital service. Reference was also made to the risk to taxpayers, employees and the library service.

Mr Ellerton spoke in respect of the 20mph in the West of York – Speed Limit Order Consultation and Petition Response (Minute 13 refers), reiterating that only 7 residents were in favour of implementation of this scheme. He pointed out that the Green Cross Code saved more pedestrian lives than 20’s Plenty. Concern was expressed at the possible increase in air pollution and accidents if this scheme was undertaken and that the finance would be utilised on road safety and road maintenance.

To approve and sign the minutes of the last meeting of the Committee held on 22 July 2013.

RESOLVED:       That the minutes of the last meeting of the Committee held on 22 July 2013 be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

To consider the decisions made by the Cabinet on 16 July 2013 in relation to the above item, which has been called in by Cllrs Ayre, Jeffries and Reid in accordance with the Council’s Constitution. A cover report is attached setting out the reasons for the call-in and the remit and powers of the Corporate and Scrutiny Management Committee (Calling-In) in relation to the call-in, together with the original report and the decisions of the Cabinet.

Members received a report which asked them to consider the decisions made by the Cabinet on 16 July 2013, in relation to the establishment of an Explore Libraries and Archives Mutual as a Community Benefit Society. The report to the meeting summarised the work undertaken by a project board whose key conclusion had been that the best possible legal model to transfer the service to a social enterprise had been via a Community Benefit Society (CBS), with exempt charitable status.

Details of the Cabinet’s decision was attached at Annex A to the report, with the original report to the Cabinet attached at Annex B. The decision had been called in by Cllrs Ayre, Jeffries and Reid on the following grounds:

·        The report claims the aim has been to determine “whether it would be in the overall interests of the Council to transfer its Libraries and Archive service to a social enterprise”. This is not what has happened. All the approved report does is provide shaky evidence that a social enterprise might work, it does not explore other options to determine whether a social enterprise is the best option for the Council or for residents. There is no evidence presented that the Council has looked at any other options not even ‘co-location’, which is national Labour Party policy and has been successfully implemented in Northamptonshire. Despite repeated requests we have not seen a copy of the social enterprise business case.

·        No proper public consultation has taken place – the consultation which took place in October 2012 only asked residents questions such as where libraries should be based, what they should provide and whether people can volunteer to help operate them. It did not ask people for their views on the potential move to a social enterprise. The ‘Focus Group’ only provides very limited evidence. For this proposal to work it has to have the full support of the public and there is no evidence that this is the case.

·        Staff have raised considerable concerns over the move to a social enterprise and the consultation process. A sample of these included in the report are:

“It has always felt like the decision to go to a Social Enterprise has been made without consulting staff. It feels like we are being asked for the sake of asking, not because what we think will be taken into account or thought about seriously”

“In many ways it feels like it's a done deal, and anything we or the public say will not have any effect on whether it happens or not”

“This is tokenism. We are asked for our opinions, but in the final analysis, if our opinions differ from those in the top seat they will not be counted”

“I think is a forgone conclusion and this has come across when workshop etc are done”

“Good thing who knows? Again all progress as if it will happen nothing about alternative etc”

·     UNISON also consistently raise concerns on behalf of staff and we  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.

To consider the decisions made by the Cabinet Member for Transport, Planning and Sustainability at his Decision Session on 19 July 2013 in relation to the above item, which has been called in by Cllrs Reid, Jeffries and Ayre in accordance with the Council’s Constitution. A cover report is attached setting out the reasons for the call-in and the remit and powers of the Corporate and Scrutiny Management Committee (Calling-In) in relation to the call-in, together with the original report and the decisions of the Cabinet Member.

Members received a report which asked them to consider the decisions made by the Cabinet Member for Transport, Planning and Sustainability on 19 July 2013, in relation to the delivery of the 20mph speed limit for residential roads across the West of York urban area, as a Council priority. The report to the meeting also set out details of the representations received following advertisement of the proposed order and to receipt of an e-petition entitled “Stop the 20mph Proposals” signed by 240 people.

Details of the Cabinet Members decision was attached at Annex A to the report, with the original report to the Cabinet Member attached at Annex B. The decision had been called in by Cllrs Reid, Jeffries and Ayre on the following grounds:

·        This policy does not enjoy public support – the report confirms that out of 13,000 residents consulted, only 7 responded in favour. This is abysmally low for a project that will cost £600,000 of taxpayers’ money in total.

·        Average speeds on many of the roads proposed for the new limit are already below 20mph and additional signage would make no practical difference, except to increase street ‘clutter’ and maintenance costs. As an example, over the last 5 years Moorcroft Road has a record of 1 slight accident, an 85th percentile speed of 19mph, and a highest recorded speed of 25mph.

·        This scheme does not target roads with safety problems – figures provided to us by officers show that of the 338 accidents recorded in West York over the last 5 years only 48 (13%) occurred on roads where it is now proposed to reduce the speed limit. In response to this point, the report claims that “The scheme has never been primarily focussed on casualty reduction” (paragraph 36). However, on paragraph 26 the report justifies the costs of implementation against the costs of accidents.

·        Evidence from elsewhere in the country with blanket schemes undermines the recommendation. In Portsmouth casualty levels are higher than before the scheme was implemented and in Oxford “a similar pattern is emerging”. In Bristol residents do not feel that the roads are safer or that speeding has reduced. And returning to Portsmouth, the scheme has not encouraged a ‘modal shift’ away from car use or encouraged cycling and walking with analysis concluding that the scheme “made little difference to the majority of respondents in the amount they travelled by their chosen mode”.

·        The evidence is that locally and nationally the police do not have the resources or inclination to enforce all new 20mphs, with the Association of Chief Police Officers telling Parliament in March that “We are not enforcing 20mph speed limits at this moment in time”.

·        The decision to take Option 3 in this report and exclude Trenchard Road and Portal Road is baffling. There will be other roads in the area where “residents are against the idea” so it is unclear why these roads have been singled out.

·        KSI (Killed or seriously injured) figures have steadily reduced in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13.