Agenda item

Twenty-two questions had been submitted to the Executive Leader and Executive Members under Standing Order 11.3(a).  The guillotine having fallen at this point, Members agreed to receive written answers to their questions, as set out below:

 

(i)         To the Cabinet Leader, from Cllr D’Agorne

“Can the Leader say what consultation is taking place with council 'champions' about their future role?”

 

            Reply

None so far as the review has not begun but Group Leaders will all be consulted on the future of champions and also committee structure.

 

(ii)        To the Cabinet Leader, from Cllr D’Agorne

“Can the Leader outline the proposed process and timescale for establishing the 'Fairness Commission', whether it will include representatives from all parties represented on the council and how the voluntary and private sector representatives will be selected?”

 

            Reply provided verbally to Cllr D’Agorne at the meeting.

           

(iii)       To the Cabinet Leader, from Cllr Ayre

“Does the Leader believe the workload he inherited from his predecessor was more than he could manage?”

 

            Reply

Not at all, but I think my predecessor did not handle his workload well.  If he had done so, he may not have lost his seat at the local elections.  I believe what Councillor Ayre is alluding to is that by sticking to a Labour manifesto pledge of creating a new Cabinet Member for Crime and Anti-Social Behaviour, that this reduces the remit of the Council Leader.

This isn’t the case, but it does allow me to devote my time to promoting economic growth and job creation, a top priority for the Labour administration and not something my predecessor was very good at.  It also gives this Council a crime focus that it has not had before.  The new Cabinet role has been welcomed by the police.

 

(iv)       To the Cabinet Leader, from Cllr Runciman

“Can the Leader explain what event led to him reversing his position that all scrutiny chairs should belong to opposition councillors?”

 

            Reply

It was not my decision but that of my Group, though I do agree with it.  Two main factors played a part.  The first is that we have a Group over three times the size of yours and almost three times the main opposition.  Therefore we felt that jobs had to be more evenly spread out across Council Members and proportionality was the best way of achieving this on a fair basis.  The second reason was that 68% of councils give some chairs to opposition parties but only 4% give them all chairs.  In light of this, we felt we should go with the majority view, as it is said to lead to more effective scrutiny, which is the priority.

I would also say to Cllr Runciman that effective overview and scrutiny can be carried out by members of any party, and I fully expect scrutiny of Cabinet decision making by all Labour colleagues not on the Cabinet.

 

(v)        To the Cabinet Leader, from Cllr Reid

“Does the Leader support the current capital programme?”

 

            Reply

I support the programme in its present form, as amended by the Labour Group tonight.  However, as Cllr Reid knows, the capital programme is always subject to change over a significant period such as that of a council administration, and the Transport capital programme is subject to a separate review.

 

(vi)       To the Cabinet Leader, from Cllr Runciman
”Will the Leader please state on what date this financial year new boilers will be installed at Yearsley Pool?”

 

            Reply

It will be installed in accordance with your own party’s budget amendment that was put forward at the Executive meeting in February.  This was to place the finances for this in the financial year 2012/13.  We did not try to reverse this position in February and we are not reversing it now.  If you have changed your mind on the previous Executive’s view on this timescale that you voted for, please let me know.

A report has been provided to the Council on the various options available for providing a heating plant for Yearsley Pool.  These options are being evaluated by officers, including the Council’s Carbon and Energy Manager.  The Yearsley Action Group is also being consulted.

The current discounted steam price is fixed until December 2012, so we would potentially make the final decision in the light of negotiations with Nestle nearer to that date.

 

(vii)      To the Cabinet Member for Leisure, Culture & Social Inclusion, from Cllr Aspden
”Where does the Cabinet Member expect that the promised city centre pool will be located, now that the sale of Labour’s stated preferred site at Kent Street has been agreed?”

           

Reply

I realise the Liberal Democrat Group Room has our manifesto across its walls and I am pleased to see the Liberal Democrat minority opposition Group taking a keen interest in the new direction of the Council.

Cllr Aspden should note that our commitment to a city centre pool is listed under the heading ‘long term aspirations’.

This section states: ‘since the Liberal Democrats shut the Barbican the number of swimming lanes lost in the city has not been replaced.’

It should be remembered that the previous Labour administration put forward a scheme which would have delivered a competition standard pool next the auditorium.

The Liberal Democrat administration revised the scheme to propose a (very small) pool on the Kent Street site which involved demolishing Kent Street car park……once land values fell and this scheme had to be abandoned the Kent Street car park was then sold as is. 

The remaining coach park site was not then big enough to accommodate a swimming pool.  Its sale now is therefore irrelevant to any previous preferences about city centre pools.

Labour is committed to finding a site and funding for a new city centre pool and will seek developer contributions towards this. We realise how difficult this will be to achieve but it will remain our ambition. As your Government is cutting funding to the council it is difficult to find funding for a new city centre pool and without necessary funding, the location is irrelevant.

However, the LDF reinforces our long-term aspiration and as and when there is a suitable site and funding, we will deliver a city centre pool.

 

(viii)     To the Cabinet Member for Leisure, Culture & Social Inclusion, from Cllr Ayre

”Has the Cabinet Member visited all of the council’s customer offices?”

 

Reply

Not as yet, no.  However, the Cabinet is planning to carry out a joint visit to talk to council staff across the organisation. This is something the previous Executive did not do. Many staff feel the previous administration did not engage with them or at worse, was unsupportive of the work they do.

         This administration is determined to change that relationship.

 

(ix)       To the Cabinet Member for Leisure, Culture & Social Inclusion, from Cllr Runciman
”Is the Cabinet Member in favour of the two stadium proposal submitted as an alternative to the Community Stadium?”

 

            Reply

I can see the merits of the proposed alternative and we have not said no to this, however we realise the imperative of working to an agreed timescale over this scheme.

The Liberal Democrats gave a commitment to a new sports stadium being open by 2011 and failed.

The Community Stadium project was deliberately stalled and delayed by the previous Liberal Democrat administration and we are anxious to get it back on track.

We are also mindful of the fact that the alternative scheme would mean a proposed significant increase in retail space at the Monks Cross site compared to the Community Stadium proposal, and this could have a negative impact on retailers in the city centre.

 

(x)        To the Cabinet Member for Leisure, Culture & Social Inclusion, from Cllr Ayre
”Can the Cabinet Member please state what involvement she has with the Oakgate group?”

 

            Reply

There have been no direct meetings between myself and Oakgate Group apart from my speaking with them and several other interested parties at the recent consultation event at the Guildhall.

However, officers have spoken to them and shared with them the direction of the current administration.

 

(xi)       To the Cabinet Member for Health, Housing & Adult Social Services, from Cllr Watt:

“In view of the universal expression of opinion in the York Press that you have no understanding of how to achieve York’s affordable housing needs and the failure of the 50% affordable housing policy, would the Cabinet Member explain how she will help both to stimulate local housing construction and achieve York’s affordable housing needs.”

 

            Reply

I would firstly answer Cllr Watt’s question by saying that the views expressed in his question apply to four individuals involved in development, one former Councillor and one current Councillor, so a long way from universal expression of opinion.

I have been consistently clear in saying that the Council never had a fixed 50% policy but a 50% target policy which had cross-party support. The principle of the policy was to maximise affordable housing provision on the basis that an unencumbered greenfield site could viably deliver 50% affordable housing at the time it was introduced.

Then, individual site circumstances would be considered to set an affordable housing target for developments that had associated costs which meant 50% was not viable. This approach has resulted in lower percentages agreed on developments such as Ouseacres (37.5%), Terrys (30.3%) and Shipton Street School (28%). The policy aim was to maximise affordable housing provision whilst ensuring developers were able to make a profit of 15 to 20%.

The 50% approach was no different to that which has been applied to affordable housing policy since 1996 when the target was 25%. There are examples since that time of developments delivering lower than 25% affordable housing after individual site viability assessments such as Forge Close, Jockey Lane 19%, Piccadilly Plaza 20%, St. Martins’ Court and Leeman Road 21%.

Regarding statistics on what sites have delivered under the 50% target, this is open to confusion and misunderstanding. Firstly, there’s the difference between planning permissions granted under the policy and homes actually built/completed. Under any market conditions there is a time lag between permissions granted and homes delivered and this has been exacerbated by the housing market conditions since 2007.  On planning permissions there are some good examples of achieving over 25% but less than 50% due to viability.

Due to the credit crunch and housing market conditions, since 2007 development across Yorkshire and England has slowed dramatically, leading to a range of initiatives from the previous government to kick-start the house-building industry, including HomeBuy Direct targeted at private developments that were stalled.

Locally, following a detailed study of economic viability, affordable housing targets have been reduced to 25% for brownfield sites and 35% for greenfield sites. These are again a target and if a development is not viable at these levels it will be reduced further.  The long term target remains at 50% but will always be subject to viability.

The 50% target was introduced at the peak of the housing market. York has responded quickly to the national housing market crisis by reducing its targets which are now the lowest in North Yorkshire. These targets are also linked to market conditions so if the housing market improves, then affordable housing targets will go up, and if the market continues to suffer due to the lack of mortgages and finance, it will reduce further.

The affordable targets in neighbouring local authorities are Selby 40%, East Riding 40%, Ryedale 35%, Harrogate 40%. Even Rotherham which has a low value housing market has a target of 25%.

Due to the drastically reduced funding from the Homes and Communities Agency the Council will need to continue to have a policy of site by site negotiation. With this up to date factual information it leaves the Council in a good place to undertake site by site analysis as a means to achieve affordable housing for the city.

Last week at the National Housing Conference in Harrogate I asked the CEOs of Taylor Wimpey and Barratts if they had any problems delivering affordable housing and were targets stopping them building; they said no.

What was stopping their companies building was the issue of finance. The CEOs of Barratts, Taylor Wimpey and Stewart Basley, Chair of the House Builders Federation, all said that the lack of house building was a result of the lack of affordable mortgages for first time buyers and too high deposits – down from 600,000 4 years ago to 200,000 the last financial year; a reduction in Buy to Let mortgages from 346,000 in 2007/08 to 96,000 last year; as well as high land prices and that the current situation reflects the position of the economy more generally.

It is therefore Government’s role to stimulate the housing market and not Local Authorities’ as it is Government that needs to tackle the lack of mortgage availability, lack of builder and consumer confidence and cuts in funding to the HCA, all of which are linked to the wider global economic recession.

 

(xii)      To the Cabinet Member for Health, Housing & Adult Social Services, from Cllr Healey:

“Could the Cabinet Member update Council on the track record of Community Energy Solutions in delivering residential solar schemes.”

 

            Reply

I would like to thank Cllr Healey for this question as he obviously has concerns about the environment and for those in fuel poverty.

The approach that City of York Council and Community Energy Solutions is taking is to provide a fully funded scheme which creates a ‘Community Profit Share’. This is an innovative scheme to bring forward funding to support the provision of Solar PVs at no cost to the property owner and City of York Council, and Community Energy Solutions are leading the way. Community Energy Solutions is currently working with 5 other organisations within the Yorkshire & Humber Region to develop such schemes and install Solar PVs.

In relation to the York scheme, the Heads of Terms Agreement has been signed and surveying work of suitable properties is being undertaken.  Priority is being given to family houses and 2,962 have been identified as potentially suitable for works.  Further surveying work will take place, i.e. to check the structural stability of the roofs to ensure that the additional weight associated with the installation of solar PVs will not cause any problems.  Work is ongoing to develop the roof access agreement and in it anticipated that installation will begin towards the end of the summer.

 

(xiii)     To the Cabinet Member for Health, Housing and Adult Social Services, from Cllr Cuthbertson

”Can the Cabinet Member confirm that the Cabinet will be reversing the decision to outsource the reablement service and explain how the subsequent £1.4m budget gap will be plugged?”

 

            Reply

Councillor Cuthbertson is right to ask his question but I would suggest that it indicates that he has either not been briefed about the situation the Lib Dems created before the election or that he has not understood the situation since as Labour was unable to make any changes until 26^th May, after Annual Council. By 19^th May the authority had already Issued tender documentation to those organisations who had successfully passed through the PQQ evaluation process.

The timetable and budget position that Cllr Morley, Cllr Waller and their Group left the Council with was not reversible. Not to have made the changes would have left the Council with a budgetary deficit of £268K for 11/12 whilst any attempt to have stopped the process could have resulted in legal challenges from those who had put time and money into the tendering process, and possible financial penalties.

Councillor Cuthbertson should know this as his ex-colleagues had made it clear that there was no Plan B and that they were ploughing ahead regardless.

 

(xiv)     To the Cabinet Member for Health, Housing and Adult Social Services, from  Cllr Aspden

“Does the Cabinet Member still support a 50% affordable housing target and does she agree with the Council Leader that targets should be reduced to ensure developments like Germany Beck are profitable for big developers?”

 

            Reply

Again as I have said many times the Council does not and has never had a 50% affordable policy, but a target. However, due to the current economic situation the Council currently has an agreed policy with a target of 25% on brownfield and 35% on greenfield which will be based on a site by site economic viability assessment.

The 35% affordable housing requirement at Germany Beck was set by an Independent Planning Inspector in 2007/08 and agreed by the developer.  However, if Persimmon feels that they are unable to deliver 35% affordable in the current market then they can approach officers who will work alongside them to review the viability, and if appropriate reduce the level of affordable housing required.

They were invited to do so many times when the Liberal Democrats were the controlling administration but did not take up the offer.  The policy is clear that the level of affordable housing will only be set at a level that allows a developer profit of 20%, and if the developer can evidence that they can only get finance to build at 25% profit then the target will reduce again by 3.5%. These are accepted standard industry profits.

 

(xv)      To the Cabinet Member for Crime and Community Safety, from Cllr Healey:

“On what quantifiable success targets should the Cabinet Member be judged?”

 

            Reply

Clearly the key issue on crime and community safety is to ensure that the recent trend of falling overall crime figures across the city is a continuing one.

However, Council will be aware that the City Council is but one of the partners involved in dealing with crime and community safety. Amongst the other partners, the other main partner is of course the police and it is the Chief Constable who has day to day operational control over the allocation of police resources.

The creation of the post of Cabinet Member for Crime and Community Safety is to provide a sharper focus for the Council’s involvement in the partnership with North Yorkshire Police and to seek to develop a clearer understanding of, and to better influence, the setting of the priorities in combating crime and anti-social behaviour.

It should also be recognised that, at a time of savage cuts by this Tory-led Government, with North Yorkshire Police set to lose 200 Officers and some 300 police civilian staff, the force will be severely stretched and its resources spread even more thinly.

A further important indicator is the public’s perception of crime and anti-social behaviour in the city and public confidence in feeling that York is a safe place to live remains a key measure. York is, in fact, a very safe city but community perception does not always reflect this. We will, therefore, work with all partners to improve community cohesion and to reduce the fear of crime

(xvi)     To the Cabinet Member for Crime and Community Safety, from Cllr Healey:

“What plans does the Cabinet Member have for enforcing 20 mph zones in residential areas?”

 

            Reply

I assume Cllr Healey is referring to enforcement of the small number of 20mph zones reluctantly introduced by the previous administration.

As he will know, only the police have the authority to enforce traffic regulations in terms of moving vehicles and the police have always made it clear that they do not have the capacity to undertake such enforcement. This will only be exacerbated by his Government’s cuts to police funding, which will see a reduction of 200 Officers across North Yorkshire.

I have, however, already met with the Commander of the York area and discussed areas for closer collaboration and this has included enforcement issues generally.

However, given this administration’s commitment to a city-wide 20mph limit in residential streets, and the fact that it has been demonstrated elsewhere, where such a blanket approach has been adopted, that this results in greater compliance with the reduced limit. It is therefore expected that enforcement will become less of an issue, than with the piece-meal approach adopted by the previous Lib Dem administration.

 

(xvii)    To the Cabinet Member for Crime and Community Safety, from Cllr Aspden
”Can the Cabinet Member detail the budgets that are covered by his new portfolio, including the amount in each budget?”

 

Reply

The budgets that fall within the new portfolio of Crime & Community Safety currently include the following heads:

Crime & Community Safety Expenditure Income Net £'000 £'000 £'000 Safer Neighbourhoods 632.8 -42.4 590.4 Licensing& Enforcement 703.8 -702.9 0.9 Env Health & Trading Standards 2,680.1 -601.1 2,079.0 Youth Offending 872.2 -858.2 14.0 Drug Action Team 1,850.9 -1,748.7 102.2 Target Hardening 39.0 39.0 0.0 6,778.8 -3,914.3 2,786.5

 

(xviii)   To the Cabinet Member for Corporate Services, from Cllr Steward:

“In what areas of current council services will the Cabinet Member be looking for greater external provision?”

 

            Reply

Given the scale of the funding reductions being imposed upon this Council, which don’t help the local economy and are totally unfair, we will need to consider all options in the delivery of services.

It is impossible to say at this moment which, if any, services we will be looking for external organisations to provide.  Any such decision will need to be subject of a full options appraisal, and risk assessment. Only then will we be able to make clear decisions which aim to deliver the most efficient and effective services to our residents.

We are, however, very open to new ways of working, and are seeking to create innovative, cost-effective solutions to the challenges we face.

 

(xix)     To the Cabinet Member for Communities and Neighbourhoods, from Cllr Reid (referred to Cabinet Member for City Strategy, whose area it covers)

”Can the Cabinet Member say what she expects the likely impact on air quality will be from the extra traffic generated by increasing the house building levels by 225 homes per year?”

 

            Reply from Cabinet Member for City Strategy

In the absence of time to obtain a detailed analysis in response to your question, and bearing in mind previous answers to your question, the effect is likely to be more or less neutral, as providing sufficient houses within the ‘greater urban area’ of York (i.e. within the A1237 and A64) to keep pace with employment growth is likely to result in more sustainable travel compared to increased inward commuting otherwise.  However, the real issue and concern is that congestion delay could almost double air pollution on both the previous and proposed versions of the LDF, even with all mitigation measures in place, so there is potentially an absolute detrimental impact on air quality, which will need to be considered in its own right further.

 

(xx)      To the Cabinet Member for City Strategy, from Cllr Taylor

“Can the Cabinet Member justify the plans to build a new stadium at such an unsustainable transport location as Monk’s Cross, requiring the support of massive additional development which departs wildly from the retail strategy as set out in the Local Development Framework?”

 

            Reply

Enabling development is development that would not normally be considered acceptable in planning terms but can be justified where there are overriding public benefits that could otherwise not be achieved, so by definition it involves some detriment. I agree the health of the City centre retail area is a very important issue, and we will need to make a very careful judgment about the stadium related proposals and their potential impacts on the City centre, on traffic and other issues. These assessments can not be made yet, as the planning application has not yet been submitted, but they will need to be thorough, as will the associated consultations, to enable members to make an informed decision.

 

(xxi)     To the Cabinet Member for City Strategy, from Cllr Runciman
”Can the Cabinet Member state when he expects a city wide 20mph zone to be in place and how much it is expected to cost?”

 

            Reply

In response to the question at Council relating to delivery of 20mph limits across the city, officers are currently investigating in detail how this significant shift in policy will be implemented across the city. It is anticipated that a policy and implementation report will be presented to the Cabinet Member for City Strategy Decision Session in October. A report enabling the advance delivery of pilot areas will be submitted to the July Decision Session.

The current expectation is that the policy will be delivered in phases with the first areas implemented in 2011/12. The programming will form part of the review of the LTP3 capital programme that I have asked for.

 

(xxii)    To the Cabinet Member for City Strategy, from Cllr Reid
”Can the Cabinet Member state when he expects that the FTR buses will be scrapped?”

 

            Reply

I have had an initial meeting with First, and this was one of the issues I raised, along with our other commitments to improving public transport in the City and tackling poor air quality that you failed to adequately address in office. I have also flagged our ambition to the recent Bus Quality Partnership meeting of making a step change improvement in local public transport that will see the implementation of smart and integrated ticketing, help bus reliability through tackling of congestion and bottlenecks, and other measures to develop a single integrated service from the bus users point of view in York.  We have a significant set of issues to address here and I am working closely with officers towards developing a comprehensive approach to them and to working with our partners in the bus industry to deliver it.