Agenda item

To receive a written report from the Executive Member for City Strategy, and to question the Executive Member thereon, provided any such questions are registered in accordance with the timescales and procedures set out in Standing Order 8(2)(a).

A written report was received from Cllr Steve Galloway, the Executive Member for City Strategy.

 

Notice had been received of seven questions on the report, submitted by Members in accordance with Standing Orders.  The questions were put and answered as follows:

 

1.         From Cllr Brian Watson:

“Can the Executive Member give assurances that they will be pursuing the retention of the ‘Ice Factor’ on the Eye of York for future years, having regard to the fact that they are conforming with all the solutions for alleviating the concerns of the courts?”

 

            The Executive Member replied

            The Executive member for Leisure is leading on this issue.

I can confirm though that my understanding is that meetings with the MD of the Ice Factor’s sponsoring company have taken place and alternative sites for this facility are under active consideration. None would in my opinion present insurmountable planning issues although the access requirements for vehicles installing and removing the equipment are a constraint.

It seems unlikely at the present time that the Crown Court will withdraw their opposition to the continued use of the Eye of York for the Ice Rink.”

 

In response to a supplementary question from Cllr Watson the Executive Member indicated that, although personally he would like to see the Ice Factor return to the Eye of York, accepting an alternative venue would provide greater certainty and was preferably to incurring the risk of legal proceedings.

 

2.         From Cllr Looker:

“Can the Executive Member explain to Council what he is doing to bring the City Strategy overspend back within the budget for 2009/10?”

 

            The Executive Member replied

The overspend reported to Executive at 17^th November totalled £239k excluding Property Services.

There were a number of reasons for the potential overspend. The main factors relate to income shortfalls from Planning £500k, Building Control £125k, Car Parking £133k, Section 38 income £40k, Newgate Market £40k and Yorwaste Dividend £130k. These primarily relate to the impact on income budgets as a result of the economic downturn. This has been partially offset by assumed additional income from Housing and Planning delivery Grant (£440k) although it should be noted that this is still to be confirmed. Total net income shortfalls were therefore £528k.

The other key expenditure pressure during the year relates to concessionary fares. There is a forecast overspend of £420k due to continued growth in the number of trips made by bus pass holders. This overspend has partially been mitigated by the introduction of a reduced reimbursement rate offered to bus companies which should reduce this particular overspend in year to £216k.

Total combined budget pressures for the year are therefore £744k

Already significant management action has been undertaken to mitigate this overspend. Strict vacancy management has resulted in staffing underspends projected to total £369k by year end.

There has also been a review of projects where expenditure has slipped or been controlled. This includes the Local Development Framework, speed camera trial and road safety projects. This is resulting in projected savings totalling £155k.

There remains a projected overspend of £239k which is being closely monitored. A freeze on non-essential expenditure has been introduced including controls on stationary, training courses, hospitality, office equipment etc however it is too soon to see what impact that will have on the overall budget.

It has been considered, but no decision yet made, that the remaining overspend could be funded by reducing the expenditure on the Local Transport Plan by £250k within the year. It will then be necessary to undertake an exercise to create a revenue underspend by capitalising legitimate revenue expenditure elsewhere in the council budget e.g. highway maintenance / IT.

This will be undertaken as a year end exercise if necessary. In the normal course of events unexpected savings do accrue during the course of a financial year so at this stage I am not anticipating the cost control measures will have any major impact of service quality or the implementation of the capital programme.”

 

In response to a supplementary question from Cllr Looker, the Executive Member stated that the reason for the overspend was the current national economic position and it had nothing to do with the additional proposals approved at the last Budget Council meeting.

 

3.         From Cllr Merrett:

“Can the Executive Member update Council on progress with the Waste PFI solution for York as this is not included in your report and tell us what the type of ‘plant’ will be built, the likely location and timescales for development?”

 

            The Executive Member replied

“North Yorkshire County Council and City of York Council are currently tendering for a long term solution for the treatment of residual municipal waste. The competitive process requires tenderers to develop detailed proposals demonstrating how they would manage municipal waste to meet the Council’s obligations to reduce the reliance on landfill.

The competitive environment of the procurement, and associated confidentiality constraints, means that officers are not in a position to enter into any discussions about any of the solutions offered or offer any further information at the moment. However, a range of solutions have been developed by the companies participating in the PFI tender and we are currently evaluating proposals on their merits without pre-judging what the outcome will be.

We expect to announce the Preferred Bidder for the long term waste contract early in 2010. That announcement will include details of their proposed solution, including locations and technology.  A period of public and stakeholder consultation will then commence where people will have the opportunity to ask questions and make their views known.  Any proposal for new waste treatment facilities will of course be subject to normal regulatory consents including detailed planning permission and granting of a permit to operate by the Environment Agency.”

 

In response to a supplementary question from Cllr Merrett, the Executive Member replied that the joint scheme with NYCC had nothing to do with the public outcry against plans for an incinerator at Tockwith and that it would be inappropriate for CYC to bring any pressure to bear on NYCC in respect of the planning application for that site.

 

 

4.         From Cllr Brian Watson:

“Will the Executive Member inform Council on progress with the following projects:- York North West, particularly that part previously known as York Central, the Community Stadium, the Barbican site and the new Council HQ?”

 

            Reply:

Cllr Watson will be aware that most of these projects fall outside the Strategy Portfolio responsibilities.

However my understanding is as follows:

·         Currently no developer has been found for the York Central site. Consequently it is unlikely that further work will be possible on the North West Area Action Plan until it is clearer when a developer could be appointed. It is hoped that some development work will be possible in a 1-3 year time frame on the former British sugar site and we are currently awaiting a formal decision from central government on an application for funding to help to kick start this part of the development. I understand though that a Ministerial announcement earlier in the week, on how £10 million of funding intended fro Eco Towns, might be distributed does give some cause for optimism.

·         Expressions of interest for the Barbican site are I understand due to be received by the Council by 17 February. 

·         A report on the tenders for the new Council HQ is due to be published on Friday (tomorrow).

The remaining item – the Community Stadium – is my responsibility. I would refer the member to the answer given to the question tabled under Standing Order 10C by Cllr Gillies and which appears at Agenda Item 14 on the Council agenda”.

 

5.         From Cllr Merrett:

“What measures is the Executive Member taking to address the decline in air quality around the inner ring road?”

 

            Reply:

Measures to improve air quality are in the second Air Quality Action Plan (AQAP2), which in turn forms part (Annex U) of the second Local Transport Plan (LTP2):

Many of the measures in AQAP2 have already been delivered. These include:

·         New planning guidance on sustainability

·         A car club

·         Cleaner, lower emission taxis

·         Graduated parking charges based on emission levels and size.

·         New cycle network facilities which has seen a 7% increase in cycling in the City

We are currently progressing:

·         3 New Park & Rides

·         A low emission zone feasibility study

 

Other measures to improve air quality will be progressed via the Local Development Framework, the City Centre Area Action Plan, the third Local Transport Plan (LTP3) and the emerging Low Emission Strategy. These include:

·         Extension of the foot streets and their hours of operation

·         A freight transhipment centre to remove heavily polluting diesel lorries from the city centre and AQMA

·         Promotion of low emission and zero emission biomethane and electric vehicles and the infrastructure to support them.

 

The low emission strategy will build on the existing air quality action plan, LTP3 and the Climate Change Strategy and look holistically at emissions of CO2, nitrogen dioxide and particulates from all sources and not just transport or development.”

 

6.         From Cllr Alexander:

“What measures is the Executive member taking to improve bus reliability, punctuality, reduce bus fares and introduce cross ticketing in the City?”

 

            Reply:

The Executive decided earlier this year to request officers to seek access to 'bus operator reports' which, because they are based upon real time bus operator data, will provide us with details of bus punctuality along a majority of routes in the City.

This will allow us to analyse problems/time delays on specific corridors/sections of route at different times of day/week.

In turn this will help to inform infrastructural schemes, traffic light timings, etc.  Officers are due to receive training on the programme in December/January.

We are working with local bus operators to draft 'Punctuality Improvement Partnerships' for a number of routes experiencing poor punctuality. These will be presented for company directors' and members' consideration early in 2010 to ensure that officers and members can move forward in confidence that both sides will be able deliver. 

Five further junctions around York will be fitted with traffic light priority which will reduce delays to buses.

In addition of course the Council continues to invest heavily in bus priority measures work on the  next of which, concerning the Fulford Road corridor, is due to commence in a few days time

The Council has no direct influence on stage carriageway bus fare levels in the City. Although we have over many years enjoyed relatively low fares on our contracted park and ride services.

The predominant operator in the City, First, review their charges in January of each year. TransDev recently introduced fare changes on some of its routes. 

There are a number of commercial influences on fare levels. The most obvious is passenger numbers and, as with most other transport modes, the recession has reduced the numbers travelling by bus.

While average fares paid have actually decreased as a result of the “free travel” concession implemented for pensioners, paradoxically a revision to the rebate rate paid to bus companies to compensate for this concession, is putting pressure on their income. It may be that any fare increase will reflect this change.

There is little evidence that central government is planning a fundamenal shake up of local bus services which would control any profit made by bus companies on particular networks. Nor do they seem willing to provide subsidies which would see bus fares generally reduced.

Cross ticketing continues to be discussed with First and other operators. Members will recall that an officer report presented to Executive in September 2008 indicated the cheapest cross-ticketing option would involve one off set up costs of £187k as well as ongoing running costs of £130k (other options were not realistically affordable). This is mainly due to the need for a manual apportionment of revenue system which would require a significant back office operation.

Officers have been asked to see whether – on a trial basis- it might be possible to introduce limited cross-ticketing,  for example, for those visiting the hospital. Implementation of a wider system is likely to rely on the introduction of payment using smartcard technology.”

 

7.         From Cllr Simpson-Laing:

“Can the Executive Member for City Strategy, with regard to Safe Routes to School, confirm whether all York schools will have meaningful green travel plans in place by the Government's deadline for their introduction, and what the emerging pattern of targets relative to existing travel patterns to & from them is in terms of the shift of pupil and staff travel away from motorised to green transport modes?”

 

            Reply:

Members will appreciate that schools now enjoy a large measure of autonomy on the way that they choose to run their facility. The fact that there is no compulsion for schools to implement and monitor travel plans makes it very difficult for the Council to otherwise persuade schools that do not wish to implement a travel plan.

Currently, I understand that the following schools have not so far fully implemented green travel plans:

·         Burnholme

·         Manor

·         Fulford

·         Applefields

·         St Aelreds

·         Burton Green

·         Acomb Primary

·         The Danesgate Centre

·         Bootham

·         Minster

All of the above are engaged in the process. It is not possible to forecast whether all will achieve the target by the deadline of the end of March 2010.

All of the submitted and approved travel plans have actions plans attached to them with targets to decrease their car use and increase the sustainable modes split. Following the census last January we produced maps for each school in York demonstrating their modal splits and intend to do so again following this January's census - these have been given to the schools.

We have been analysing the preferred mode of travel data provided by students earlier this year and are targeting resource at schools with the maximum potential for movement to more sustainable modes from the car.

Copies of the draft sustainable travel to schools strategy are available on request.”