Agenda item

To receive and consider a written report from the Leader on the work of the Cabinet, and the Cabinet recommendations for approval, as set out below:

 

Meeting	Date	Recommendations
Cabinet                                       Cabinet      Cabinet	19 July 2011                                       6 September 2011    4 October 2011	(Part A) Minute 14: Taking Forward the 2011/12 Budget Priorities Note: this item relates to the draft Council Plan, a copy of which has been made available on-line, with printed copies circulated separately to Members.  A report containing recommendations in respect of the draft Plan is attached to the minute.   (Part B) Minute 26: Capital Programme Out-turn 2010/11 and Revisions to the 2011/12-2015/16 Programme   Minute 40: Capital Programme – Monitor One   Minute 53: Response to Draft National Planning Policy Framework   Note:  the above minute, together with the draft response to consultation on the NPPF incorporating the amendments recommended by Cabinet, was published with this agenda on 5 October 2011.

 

A written report was received from the Cabinet Leader, Cllr James Alexander, on the work of the Cabinet.

 

A       Questions

 

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

 

(i)      From Cllr D’Agorne:

“Will this programme [Reinvigorate York] include reviewing all highway signing that detracts from views of the walls, bars and other historic features of the city, and can you assure us that additional cycle parking will be provided when railings are removed and outdated ‘butterfly’ (wheelbender) stands will be replaced with Sheffield stands?”

 

The Leader replied:

“This programme will include reviewing all highway signing that detracts from views of the walls, bars and other historic features of the city. I have not had any detailed discussions yet about cycle parking but I am happy to discuss this with Sir Ron Cooke.”

 

(ii)      From Cllr Cuthbertson:

“Given there will no longer be any capital receipt from Union Terrace car and coach park to fund Reinvigorate York, has the project been scaled down?”

 

The Leader replied:

“A partial capital receipt of £2m can no longer be committed to this scheme as the sale is not proceeding. However the ambition remains the same. Sir Ron Cooke is confident a lot can be achieved by using existing council budgets more wisely. We would like to see further investment in the city centre. We will have more of an idea of the financial position for 2012/13 when the government announces its grant settlement in December.”

 

(iii)     From Cllr Watt:

“Will the Council Leader accept my advice that it is unhelpful to service personnel to have their predicament ‘politicised’ by statements on the Covenant such as “Conservative Liberal-Democrat Cuts” and reference to pressures resulting from government policy to increase the size of the Territorial Army?”

 

The Leader replied:

“I was repeating the words said to me by military personnel I have met on a number of occasions since becoming council leader. Morale in the armed forces is not great when a government who promised to help the armed forces are sacking personnel on active duty. The cuts are coming from the government and that government is a coalition of the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats. The Territorial Army will increase significantly in size and some members of the Territorial Army are reticent to declare to employers or potential employers the good work they do in the military because employers see this as a burden rather than a benefit. The military and the government has recognised this issue and the Council should play its part in also helping employers realise the benefits of employing members of the TA. The Community Covenant scheme goes some way towards this and this has the full backing of the military, the Conservative-Liberal Democrat Government and I would like to say this council.”

 

(iv)     From Cllr Barton:

“Before issuing his proposals on the Community Covenant will the Leader seek advice and guidance from those Members of the Council, regardless of their political affiliations, who have run businesses and at the same time served as an active member of the Territorial Army?”

 

          The Leader replied:

“It has been agreed that group leaders will take the issue to a meeting of the Staffing Matters and Urgency Committee and the document will be based on government guidelines. I would suggest this input would be welcome and that the conduit for this is through respective group leaders before it comes to Staffing and Urgency.”

 

(v)     From Cllr D’Agorne:

“Given the possibility that the additional funding will not be consolidated in the base budget, is consideration being given to showing this on council tax information so that residents are made aware of the long term hidden cut they face?”

 

          The Leader replied:

“I have no issue with an explanation of the 2.5% last year being included in the information sent to residents and the same information on this year if required.”

 

(vi)     From Cllr Watt:

“Is the Council Leader aware that the council tax freeze policy was in the Conservative Manifesto for last year’s general election, was not Labour policy and that there was never any doubt that this policy would also be Conservative Council Group policy; therefore, it is disingenuous for him to suggest it was his idea – particularly when council tax all but doubled under the last Labour government?”

 

The Leader replied:

“The council tax freeze policy for York was first called for and raised in the public domain in The Press on 20^th December 2010. I wrote to all group leaders asking them to freeze council tax in their budget proposals. All groups did so. Council tax is decided by local councils and for the last 8 of the 13 years of the Labour government Labour did not set council tax in York. In the last 4 years your group held the balance of power and supported any increases during those years.”

 

The time limit having expired for this item, written answers were circulated after the meeting to the remaining question as follows:

 

(vii)    From Cllr Watt:

“In view of the Cabinet Leader’s concern that money might be better allocated to promoting jobs for young people, will he consider reducing his cabinet by one post in order to fund a council appointment of an additional young person?”

 

Reply:

It is curious that the Conservative group, the so called party of law and order, does not support a Cabinet Member for Crime and Community Safety. It is even more curious that other Conservative councils who first pioneered having such a cabinet position disagree with them. And even more curious still that instead of a local cabinet member for crime and community safety they would prefer a police commissioner who is paid £122,000. I would prefer to see 8 young people employed than that waste.

 

(viii)   From Cllr D’Agorne:

“Are any current apprenticeships facing redundancy and what are the prospects for retention at the end of their training?”

 

Reply:

None that I am aware of as we have been actively recruiting apprenticeships. 36 have been recruited so far this financial year. The skills and experience apprenticeships receive will set them in good stead when seeking employment either at CYC or elsewhere. However, it is difficult to say what retention is likely when we are still receiving unprecedented cuts from the Conservative Liberal Democrat government which is leading to job losses.

 

(ix)     From Cllr Healey:

“If the Labour Party Budget amendment proposed in February of this year had been successful, how many apprenticeships would this have funded?”

 

Reply:

You are anticipating that the Conservative amendment agreed by Liberal Democrat and Conservative councillors was mutually exclusive to the Labour amendment. This was not the case. The Labour amendment passed in June increased apprenticeship funding awarded by the Conservative amendment by 15%. This was a manifesto pledge. 36 apprenticeships have been created so far through the total funding awarded.

 

(x)     From Cllr Galvin:

Relating to the first sentence of the fourth paragraph under the heading ‘Increasing Jobs and Economic Growth’, does the Leader support the Shadow Chancellor’s call for increasing the Nation’s Debt as a solution to the  economic problems of the country?”

 

Reply:

I support the Shadow Chancellor’s call for a tax cut in reducing VAT to stimulate the economy, for a bank bonus tax to pay for getting young people into work and spending in the economy and I support the Shadow Chancellor calling for growth to be considered more than austerity through slower reductions in public expenditure. The IMF backed this latter point this week in statements referring to a possible double dip recession.

 

(xi)     From Cllr D’Agorne:

“How will demolishing a small toilet block on Parliament Street without providing some other means of screening traffic intrusion benefit the city centre economy?”

 

Reply:

Toilet blocks do not exist to screen traffic. Replacing this building with a performance space is under consideration. However, I will feed in your comments into the Reinvigorate York initiative.

 

(xii)    From Cllr Healey:

“What advice has the Leader received from Officers as to the effect that Monks Cross 2 will have on the likelihood of the Piccadilly redevelopment starting in this Council term?”

 

Reply

None.

 

(xiii)   From Cllr Watt:

“Rather than just fostering a climate that has led to interest in hotel applications and retail opportunities, will the Cabinet leader agree to brief the Labour members of the planning Committees that it would help York’s economic growth and the creation of jobs if they adopted a more positive attitude to approving planning applications for such developments?”

 

Reply:

I am not sure where the Conservative Group are coming from on this. First of all you and your Government want to protect the green belt, then you want presumed consent for development, then you want local communities to have a choice. I will not interfere with the planning process due to its quasi-judicial nature. 

 

(xiv)   From Cllr D’Agorne:

“What is the expected timescale for the Community Stadium project, given that a public inquiry is required with it being a departure from the Local Plan and involves council owned land?”

 

Reply:

It is at the discretion of the Secretary for State, whether the application will be ‘called-in’ and a Public Inquiry held.  It would take between 30 to 36 months to procure and complete the scheme. If there were to be an external intervention beyond the direct control of the council (for example a call-in Public Inquiry or Judicial Review) this would add time to the completion date, as it would with any major development scheme.

 

(xv)    From Cllr Galvin:

“Is the Leader fully aware of the alternative proposals for a Community Stadium and if so can he update Council on any information he has?”

 

Reply:

I can update Council that Oakgate have submitted their planning application and this is live. The first alternative application has not been submitted. An e-mail from John Guildford indicated a third plan but no detail has been submitted. Should these plans come to fruition the planning process can give consideration and these applications will be publicly available for scrutiny.

 

(xvi)   From Cllr Healey:

“Could the Council Leader expand on his statement ‘Any concerns should be evidence-based, as should the case for retail expansion at Monks Cross’?”

 

Reply:

Concerns have been raised about the proposed retail development before the evidence to quantify or nullify fears have been published. I think it is important to give a view on the facts rather than fear or a concern for market share rather than a growing market.

 

(xvii)  From Cllr D’Agorne:

“What is the expected timescale for this project [York Central] to come forward if a major retail development at Monks Cross is given approval and will the plan for comparison retail within York Central now be dropped?”

 

Reply:

Impetus on this development has increased since Labour took control of the council and we have strategically purchased an area of land to progress the development. I am keen for the proposed development to go to market in the next couple of years. It is important we get this right rather than progress at haste. Moreover this scheme has had a long history. I am uncertain what is referred to as ‘comparison retail’ but an element of retail on York Central will be required to make the financial model stack up.

 

(xviii) From Cllr Healey:

“What are the costs of the ‘free’ Wi-fi scheme in Y1 and 2 and what benefits does he envisage for York?”

 

Reply:

The pilot scheme will cost £30k from existing budgets. Once up and running businesses are to be consulted on whether this should expand across the city centre and options for funding will be considered. So far I have received only positive responses and the retail strategy group are very much in favour. Benefits include attractiveness to shoppers, visitors and businesses, uniqueness compared to other UK and European cities, opportunities for IP TV as part of a York television channel and a change in the way we deliver services such as CCTV network or reporting in grotspots.

 

(xix)   From Cllr D’Agorne:

“Can the Leader assure us that only organisations on Ed Milliband’s ‘good companies’ list will be allowed advertising space?”

 

Reply:

Not when I do not control all advertising space.

 

(xx)    From Cllr Healey:

“What evidence does the Leader have his assertion that there could be ‘a company to run the front homepage, to pay for maintenance costs and for the Council to receive a cut of advertising revenue’?”

 

          Reply:

Two media companies saying they are interested in this model and being a homepage provider.

 

(xxi)   From Cllr Runciman:

“How does the Cabinet Leader intend to judge the success of the Fairness Commission?”

 

Reply:

Through the quality of input and insight into the budget process and through the long term outcomes of creating a fairer society in York. This will be difficult due to the likelihood of poverty increasing due to Conservative-Liberal Democrat Government policy. In York 1,950 of York’s poorest people will lose £50 a month due to housing benefit changes, homelessness will increase and York will be unaffordable for those on housing benefit by 2026. The work of the Fairness Commission and this administration may have to focus on reducing the effect of such policies.

 

(xxii)  From Cllr Aspden:

“How many residents attended the public meetings of the Fairness Commission?”

 

          Reply:

The Fairness Commission had approximately 200 people attending the public meetings despite two meetings being held on two record-breaking hot daysof 30^th September and 1^st October.

Inaddition, the commission is expectingmore than 500web and postcardresponses and staff suggestionsby the closing date.

I am told the finalmeeting last night was well-attended byyoung people.

 

(xxiii) From Cllr Firth:

“The Cabinet Leader says he believes in an open Council, can he say why none of the answers to Freedom of Information requests were published on the Council website between the beginning of August and the beginning of October?”

 

          Reply:

When the Council responds to a requestor with information, the Council waits 28 days before publishing the request and answer on the website. This is to allow the requestor the statutory timeframe to come back and ask for further clarification or information. All FOIs are live.

I would like to draw your attention to FOI request Y3538, attachment 13. This email to Councillor Carol Runciman explains that the previous Liberal Democrat administration she was deputy leader for had encouraged officers to progress the sale proposal.

 

(xxiv) From Cllr D’Agorne

“Can the names of council contractors and consultants be published online in the interests of transparency?”

 

          Reply:

They already are when over £500.

 

(xxv)  From Cllr Hyman:

“Why did the Cabinet Leader decide to delay the publication of his entire report to Council instead of producing a separate update on the Community Covenant, after the Group Leaders’ meeting?”

 

Reply:

As I explained to group leaders it was an integral part of my report and I wanted to ensure that the community covenant issue that I have been working on did not look like an afterthought. I also thought it was important that group leaders discussed the issue and the time for that was the scheduled leaders’ meeting on the Friday after the report publishing date.

 

(xxvi) From Cllr Orrell:

“Can the Cabinet Leader say which items from his party’s manifesto he believes have been delivered?”

 

Reply:

1.   Seeking to increase apprenticeships

2.   Holding an annual business conference

3.   Reversing £1m of Conservative Liberal Democrat cuts

4.   Scrapping a £1.4m new council office in Acomb

5.   Creating a high level post to tackle crime and community safety

6.   Setting up the independent Fairness Commission

 

We are currently working towards:

1.   Delivering more affordable housing through increasing housing targets in the LDF

2.   Supporting 20mph speed limits in residential areas

3.   Increasing the use of community payback to ensure those responsible for vandalism clean up their mess

4.   Increasing the amount we recycle through committing capital to new recycling boxes and revenue to a new promotional campaign

5.   Advertising assisted waste collection services to elderly residents through the council tax statements

 

Cllr Orrell can look forward to the delivery of the remainder of our manifesto pledges, as well as a number of other priorities that will emerge, over the course of this administration.

 

B       Cabinet Recommendations

 

Council Plan

 

Cllr Alexander moved, and Cllr Simpson-Laing seconded, the following recommendation contained in the Officer report at page 48 of the additional Council papers circulated on 30 September:

 

“[That Council] approve the Council Plan and the priorities it sets for the next four years.”

 

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

 

RESOLVED:       That the above recommendation in respect of the Council Plan be approved.¹

 

Capital Programme

 

Cllr Alexander then moved, and Cllr Simpson-Laing seconded, the following recommendations contained in Minute 26 of the Cabinet meeting held on 19 July 2011:

 

(i)      That Council approve the re-stated 2011/12 to 2015/16 capital programme, as summarised in Table 4 at paragraph 37 of the report and detailed in Annex 1. ²

 

(ii)     That Council approve the use of additional resources in the form of prudential borrowing at a value of £65k, to fund the overspend on Clements Hall. ²

 

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

 

RESOLVED:       That the recommendations contained in Minute 26 of the Cabinet meeting held on 19 July 2011 be approved. ²

 

Cllr Alexander then moved, and Cllr Simpson-Laing seconded, the following recommendations contained in Minute 40 of the Cabinet meeting held on 6 September:

 

“That Council approve:

(i)           The net adjustments of an increase of £5.436k in 2011/12 and a reduction of £3.849k in 2012/13, as detailed in the report and contained in Annex A. ³

(ii)         The increase of £38k in the Travellers’ electricity units scheme, funded by prudential borrowing and supported by existing revenue budgets (paragraph 15). ³

(iii)       The addition to the capital programme of the Howe Hill Hostel scheme at £50k, to be funded from RTB capital receipts not committed elsewhere in the housing capital programme (paragraph 16). ³

(iv)       The use of the £300k contingency fund to fund the following schemes, totalling £170k: ³

St Clements Hall - £30k (para 23)

29 Castlegate - £35k (para 24)

Decent Homes standard - £69k (paras 25-27)

Fishergate Postern - £20k (paras 28-29)

Castle Mills Car Park - £16k (para 30)” ³

 

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

 

RESOLVED:       That the recommendations in Minute 40 of the Cabinet meeting held on 6 September 2011 be approved. ³

 

National Planning Policy Framework

 

Cllr Alexander then moved, and Cllr Merrett seconded, the following recommendations contained in Minute 53 of the Cabinet meeting held on 4 October 2011:

 

(i)      That Council approve the attached response to the consultation on the National Planning Policy Framework, as amended by the changes recommended by the LDF Working Group at their meeting on 3 October 2011, for submission to the Department of Communities & Local Government. ⁴

 

(ii)     That Council delegate to the Director of City Strategy, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for City Strategy, authority to make any changes to the submission that are necessary as a result of the above recommendation. ⁴

 

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

 

RESOLVED:       That the recommendations in Minute 53 of the Cabinet meeting held on 4 October 2011 be approved. ⁴