Agenda item

Notices of Motion

Meeting of Council, Thursday, 7 October 2010 6.30 pm (Item 42.)

To consider the following Notices of Motion under Standing Order 12:

A – Motions referred from the Executive 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 Vassie

“Council notes the intention of the Coalition Government to hold a referendum on introducing the Alternative Vote system for United Kingdom General Elections.

Council also notes the commitment of the previous Labour Government to the introduction of voting reform for UK General Elections, the commitment of the Green Party to a fair voting system, and the commitment of the Liberal Democrat Party ‘to seek to include proportional representation for local government elections in England and Wales as part of the political reform programme of the coalition government.’

Council agrees that both national and local authority elections should employ a more proportional and representative voting system in order to better represent the voting intentions of their electorates.

Council therefore resolves to write to the Deputy Prime Minister to call on the Coalition Government to introduce a fair voting system for local elections as part of its package of political reforms and indicates Council’s willingness to see a more proportional voting system employed in future local elections in York.”

(ii) From Cllr Simpson-Laing

“Council is gravely concerned for the future of the Royal Mail Sorting Office in Leeman Road and deplores the recent announcement by Vince Cable MP, Business Secretary, to privatise the Royal Mail, which could hasten the proposed removal of First Class Mail sorting from York to Leeds.

Council is concerned at these recent announcements, given that :

· A recent YouGov Poll found a majority of voters of every major party opposed Royal Mail privatisation;

· Royal Mail is a market leader whose profits rose by 26 percent to £404m in 2010;

· A fully funded modernisation programme has been agreed by management and unions, in York and nationally, to bring stability to the company;

· Privatisation will lead to the separation of Royal Mail and the Post Office Network, putting the existence of many Post Offices in York and throughout the country at risk;

· Privatisation will put at risk the universal collection and delivery service for households and business, result in a reduction of post boxes, in York and nationally, and has the potential to harm the UK economy;

· The removal of mail sorting from York to Leeds is enormously wasteful in terms of transport and greenhouse gas emissions;

· The loss of the York Sorting Office jobs will impact on the York economy and affect the health and well being of workers and their families.

Council instructs the Chief Executive to:

· Write to the Royal Mail Chief Executive, Moya Greene, to express concerns on the impact of removing first class mail sorting from York to Leeds, and ask that the modernisation programme is allowed time to deliver its goals;

· Write to the Business Secretary and request a halt to the announced Royal Mail privatisation plans so that the recently agreed modernisation plans can be allowed to progress.”

(iii) From Cllr Gillies

"This Council welcomes the proposals recently put forward by the Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG) as part of its efforts to improve local transparency and accountability.

This Council therefore commits itself to complying with the DCLG recommendations and by 1st January 2011 at the latest will publish and continuing publishing online:

1. Details in full of total cumulative spending over £500;

2. Information on all posts paying over £50,000 per year (including details of benefits and expenses) and their job descriptions;

3. Councillor allowances and expenses in a real time rather than annual format.

None of the above shall include information that:

a) Relates to a commercial agreement in negotiation;

b) Is not publishable under the Data Protection Act;

c) Relates to the protection of vulnerable adults and/or children.

This Council also pledges that this information shall be published at zero cost to the taxpayers, with its collation and presentation forming part of other processes already carried out by the Council.

With some of this information already available, the Council further pledges to make itself even more transparent by requiring that the various strands of information be collected and brought together on the Council website, with a link on the front page, under the heading 'www.york.gov.uk/transparency' to make it easy for residents to find."

(iv) From Cllr Alexander

“Council believes that:

· Residents of houses in multiple occupation, including students, can be good neighbours and are valued members of communities. They often work locally and contribute positively to the local economy but sometimes can gain an unfair reputation.

· Some landlords are not living up to their responsibility to maintain properties in the interest of local residents and student tenants. Therefore the Council’s Voluntary Code of Best Practice is not working.

· This affects community cohesion.

Council notes:

· The changes to householder profiles, particularly in council wards that surround York’s higher education institutions.

· That the recently published Student Housing report was discussed at the Local development Framework Working Group on 6^th September 2010, where the recommendation of the former Chair of Liberal Democrats Youth Wing was to do nothing on this issue.

· That 15% of all properties in Hull Road ward currently receive student council tax exemption.

· Hull Road ward residents’ concerns about landlords not taking responsibility over the upkeep of their properties, to the detriment of local residents and student tenants.

· That by obtaining “Selective Licensing” powers from the Government, the Council would be able to license student properties.

· That in areas of Leeds where these powers are used, landlords have to prove they are a fit and proper person, and that their property meets certain conditions before they are granted a licence to rent out their properties. Landlords must ensure tenants have appropriate references, keep their properties decent and ensure good management. A fine of £20,000 could result from anybody renting a property without a licence. If a landlord has a licence they can still be fined up to £5,000 if they fail to meet the conditions.

Council requests:

· The Director of Communities & Neighbourhoods to apply to the Conservative / Liberal Democrat Coalition Government for ‘Selective Licensing’ powers under part three of the Housing Act 2004 to license landlords in Hull Road ward, and other affected areas as appropriate, in the interests of both residents and student tenants.”

(v) From Cllr Reid

“Council welcomes the announcement that 19 new Council homes are to be built on Lilbourne Drive, with funding from City of York Council and the Homes and Communities Agency.

Council also welcomes the fact that the new homes will be one of only a handful of projects nationally to achieve Code Level 5 sustainability, saving future residents money on energy bills and further enhancing York’s reputation as a centre of excellence for eco construction.

Council notes that the new homes will be the first Council houses to be built in the city for 20 years, despite 13 years of the Labour government making numerous promises of support for new Council houses.

Council thanks officers for their hard work and commitment to taking the project forward at a time when opposition Councillors were busy talking down the chances of securing funding for the scheme.

Council resolves to ask the Director of Communities & Neighbourhoods towrite to the Housing Minister to urge the government to do all they can to support further construction of new Council houses in York.”

Minutes:

(i) Alternative Vote System

It was moved by Cllr Vassie and seconded by Cllr Holvey that:

“Council notes the intention of the Coalition Government to hold a referendum on introducing the Alternative Vote system for United Kingdom General Elections.

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

RESOLVED: That the above notice of motion be approved. ¹

(ii) Royal Mail Sorting Office

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

Council is concerned at these recent announcements, given that :

· A recent YouGov Poll found a majority of voters of every major party opposed Royal Mail privatisation;

· Royal Mail is a market leader whose profits rose by 26 percent to £404m in 2010;

· A fully funded modernisation programme has been agreed by management and unions, in York and nationally, to bring stability to the company;

· Privatisation will lead to the separation of Royal Mail and the Post Office Network, putting the existence of many Post Offices in York and throughout the country at risk;

· The removal of mail sorting from York to Leeds is enormously wasteful in terms of transport and greenhouse gas emissions;

· The loss of the York Sorting Office jobs will impact on the York economy and affect the health and well being of workers and their families.

Council instructs the Chief Executive to:

· Write to the Business Secretary and request a halt to the announced Royal Mail privatisation plans so that the recently agreed modernisation plans can be allowed to progress.”

Cllr Holvey then moved, and Cllr Moore seconded, an amendment to the above motion, as follows:

“In paragraph one

- after ‘Council is gravely concerned’ insert ‘by the continued threat to’

- after ‘Leeman Road’ insert ‘as previously highlighted by the Liberal Democrat motion to Council in July 2009’

- Delete from ‘and deplores’ to the end of paragraph one.

In paragraph two

- Replace ‘Council is concerned at these recent announcements given that’ with ‘Council notes the need for Royal Mail to find a sustainable business model but is concerned that:’

- Delete the first five bullet points

- Insert an additional bullet point saying ‘The removal of the York postmark will have a negative impact on the city.’

In paragraph three:

- In bullet point one, after ‘from York to Leeds’ insert ‘and asks that this issue be reconsidered’

- In bullet point one, delete ‘and asks that the modernisation programme is allowed time to deliver its goals’

- Delete bullet point two.”

On being put to the vote, the amendment was declared CARRIED.

The motion, as amended, now read as follows:

“Council is gravely concerned by the continued threat to the future of the Royal Mail Sorting Office in Leeman Road as previously highlighted by the Liberal Democrat motion to Council in July 2009.

Council notes the need for Royal Mail to find a sustainable business model but is concerned that :

· The removal of mail sorting from York to Leeds is enormously wasteful in terms of transport and greenhouse gas emissions;

· The loss of the York Sorting Office jobs will impact on the York economy and affect the health and well being of workers and their families.

· The removal of the York Post mark will have a negative impact on the city

Council instructs the Chief Executive to:

· Write to the Royal Mail Chief Executive, Moya Greene, to express concerns on the impact of removing first class mail sorting from York to Leeds and asks that this issue be reconsidered.” ²

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

RESOLVED: That the above notice of motion, as amended, be approved. ²

(iii) DCLG Proposals for the Publication of Council Information

Cllr Gillies moved, and Cllr Healey seconded, that

"This Council welcomes the proposals recently put forward by the Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG) as part of its efforts to improve local transparency and accountability.

This Council therefore commits itself to complying with the DCLG recommendations and by 1st January 2011 at the latest will publish and continuing publishing online:

1. Details in full of total cumulative spending over £500;

2. Information on all posts paying over £50,000 per year (including details of benefits and expenses) and their job descriptions;

3. Councillor allowances and expenses in a real time rather than annual format.

None of the above shall include information that:

a) Relates to a commercial agreement in negotiation;

b) Is not publishable under the Data Protection Act;

c) Relates to the protection of vulnerable adults and/or children.

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

RESOLVED: That the above notice of motion be approved. ³

(iv) Selective Licensing of Student Properties

Cllr Alexander moved, and Cllr Simpson-Laing seconded, that:

“Council believes that:

· This affects community cohesion.

Council notes:

· The changes to householder profiles, particularly in council wards that surround York’s higher education institutions.

· That 15% of all properties in Hull Road ward currently receive student council tax exemption.

· Hull Road ward residents’ concerns about landlords not taking responsibility over the upkeep of their properties, to the detriment of local residents and student tenants.

· That by obtaining “Selective Licensing” powers from the Government, the Council would be able to license student properties.

Council requests:

Cllr Steve Galloway then moved, and Cllr Reid seconded, an amendment to the above motion, as follows

“Under ‘Council notes’ in the second paragraph:

In bullet point two, delete all after ‘September 2010’

After bullet point two insert an additional bullet point reading:

· ‘That the LDF Working group agreed that work be carried out to assess the possibility of using Article 4 Designation to regulate HMOs through the planning process.’

In bullet point five, change ‘student properties’ to ‘rented properties in a defined area’.

Following bullet point five, insert an additional bullet point reading:

· ‘However, to obtain ‘Selective Licensing’ powers the Council would have to prove that the area either suffered from a significant anti-social behaviour problem, or that housing demand was considerably lower than other areas of the city, which may not be the case.’

After the final bullet point insert two additional bullet points reading:

· That there are very few HMOs in the areas in Leeds where the powers are used and that the powers were obtained to tackle issues of low demand and anti social behaviour and not student housing.

· That a number of other options exist other than using selective licensing powers, including the introduction of an accreditation scheme

In the third paragraph, delete all after ‘Council requests the Director for Communities and Neighborhoods to’ and replace with:

‘work with the local Development Framework Working Group to bring a report to the Executive outlining the options available to the council to address residents’ concerns about HMOs in the city, including the introduction of an accreditation scheme.’

On being put to the vote, the amendment was declared CARRIED.

The motion, as amended, now read as follows:

“Council believes that:

· This affects community cohesion.

Council notes:

· The changes to householder profiles, particularly in council wards that surround York’s higher education institutions.

· The recently published Student Housing report was discussed at the Local development Framework Working Group on 6^th September 2010

· That the LDF Working group agreed that work be carried out to assess the possibility of using Article 4 Designation to regulate HMOs through the planning process.

· 15% of all properties in Hull Road ward currently receive student council tax exemption.

· Hull Road ward residents’ concerns about landlords not taking responsibility over the upkeep of their properties to the detriment of local residents and student tenants.

· By obtaining “Selective Licensing” powers from the Government the Council would be able to license rented properties in a defined area.

· However, to obtain ‘Selective Licensing’ powers the Council would have to prove that the area either suffered from a significant anti-social behaviour problem, or that housing demand was considerably lower than other areas of the city, which may not be the case.

· In areas of Leeds where these powers are used, landlords have to prove they are a fit and proper person, and that their property meets certain conditions before they are granted a licence to rent out their properties. Landlords must ensure tenants have appropriate references, keep their properties decent and ensure good management. A fine of £20,000 could result from anybody renting a property without a licence. If a landlord has a licence they can still be fined up to £5,000 if they fail to meet the conditions.

· That there are very few HMOs in the areas in Leeds where the powers are used and that the powers were obtained to tackle issues of low demand and anti social behaviour and not student housing.

· That a number of other options exist other than using selective licensing powers, including the introduction of an accreditation scheme

Council requests the Director for Communities and Neighborhoods to work with the local Development Framework Working Group to bring a report to the Executive outlining the options available to the council to address residents’ concerns about HMOs in the city, including the introduction of an accreditation scheme.”⁴

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

RESOLVED: That the above notice of motion, as amended, be approved. ⁴

(v) New Council Housing

It was moved by Cllr Reid, and seconded by Cllr Waudby that:

“Council welcomes the announcement that 19 new Council homes are to be built on Lilbourne Drive, with funding from City of York Council and the Homes and Communities Agency.

Council thanks officers for their hard work and commitment to taking the project forward at a time when opposition Councillors were busy talking down the chances of securing funding for the scheme.

Council resolves to ask the Director of Communities & Neighbourhoods to write to the Housing Minister to urge the government to do all they can to support further construction of new Council houses in York.” ⁵

Cllr Simpson-Laing then moved, and Cllr Alexander seconded, an amendment to the above motion, as follows:

“In the third paragraph, delete all from ‘despite’ to ‘houses’ and insert ‘but that many more are required to deal with York’s housing costs’.

In the fourth paragraph, delete ‘at a time when’ and insert ‘and’; delete all from ‘were busy’ to ‘securing’ and insert ‘for their intervention with the Shadow Housing Minister John Healy to secure’.

On being put to the vote, the amendment was declared LOST.

The original motion was then put to the vote and was declared CARRIED and it was

RESOLVED: That the above notice of motion be approved. ⁵