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	6 March 2012	Minute 118: Neighbourhood Working – A New Approach          Minute 119: The Community Stadium: Business Case    http://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=6681&Ver=4

 

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 thirteen questions on the written report, submitted by Members in accordance with Standing Orders. The first seven questions were put and answered as follows:

 

(i)                From Cllr Barton

“Will the cost of the improved gifts to international visitors come from the new Innovation Fund personally controlled by Cllr Alexander and what is likely to be the revised annual cost?”

 

  The Leader replied:

“No. You have misunderstood the purpose of the delivery and innovation fund.

 

What I have said in my report is not about increasing the cost of diplomatic gifts to international dignitaries, it is about bringing this council’s processes and procedures on this matter in line with cities across the UK and showcasing York products and businesses to an international market. At meetings of the internationalisation group I have set up, your Group Leader Councillor Gillies has agreed with me on this.” 

 

(ii)        From Cllr Ayre

“How much money does he believe taxpayers should be paying for gifts?”

 

The Leader replied:

“It is appropriate that we are culturally sensitive to international visitors and the markets we are trying to attract. In many cultures the exchange of gifts is important for fostering relationships. I am not expecting anything expensive but something that says something about York and is of quality. We are not currently doing this in a systematic way. This is not about paying more for diplomatic gifts, it is about working with businesses across our city and ensuring their products are showcased to key international markets.”

  

(iii)       From Cllr Warters

“Whilst congratulating the Council Leader for the expedient removal of the ftr buses, would he demonstrate that this is not just a political gesture and commit to the removal of the other equally unsuitable, equally dangerous and equally damaging bendy buses from York’s streets?”

 

The Leader replied:

“The FTR buses had specific negative impacts on our city due to their size, poor fuel consumption and weight. The integrity of our city’s roads was affected and heavy maintenance costs incurred as a result.

 

We listened to residents’ complaints and addressed this issue. We have had no such complaints, nor seen the same impacts from the ‘bendy’ buses.”

 

(iv)       From Cllr Firth

“As the Leader has claimed credit for terminating the number 4 FTR service, could he tell us what representations he has made to First regarding the future of the 20 staff who have been made redundant as a result of his decision?”

 

The Leader replied:

“I have asked the Cabinet Member for transport, in conjunction with council officers, to lobby for redeployment where possible. As a result, six conductors have already been redeployed. We will continue these efforts.

 

I do not agree with the Liberal Democrats calling for council taxpayers’ money to fund these redundant posts.”

 

(v)        From Cllr Ayre

“Can the Leader state whether he believes the shift from FTR to double-decker buses in the city will make public transport more or less accessible to those with disabilities?”

 

The Leader replied:

“Until we have seen some information regarding the usage of the new vehicles, it would be premature to answer this question.  However, double-decker buses are wheelchair accessible.”

  

(vi)       From Cllr Healey

“Regarding the council’s record on apprenticeships, will the Council Leader acknowledge that it was as a result of the 2011/2012 budget, which his Labour Group opposed, that an initial £100,000 for apprenticeships was provided by the council which, subsequently matched by council departments, enabled the council to recruit 32 apprenticeships since May 2011, and not the Labour Group’s amendment of £25,000, which would have only resulted in 9 or 10 apprenticeships?”

 

The Leader replied:

“Of course, if Councillor Healey is also willing to recognise that Labour increased this budget by 15% at the 30^th June 2011 council meeting following winning control of the council and that his party voted against this increase.”

  

(vii)      From Cllr Cuthbertson

“Given his comments (with regards to police commissioners) that communication with residents using the Internet rather than by mail delivery is unacceptable, can he explain why this is the precise policy he is now using for resident engagement in York?”

 

The Leader replied:

“Electronic communications have a place in communicating with residents, but should not be used to completely replace traditional forms of communications. We are committed to providing a range of communication tools including electronic and paper-based, as well as personal contact, to ensure that our residents are communicated with appropriately, effectively and efficiently.

 

This is why the reduction in ward committee leaflets as a consequence of the last Liberal Democrat budget is to be reversed with new efficiency savings.

 

It should be noted that the Government has given guidance to limit the number of printed council publications.”

  

(viii)     From Cllr Aspden

“How much has the new City of York Council phone application cost (to develop, purchase and/or maintain)?”

 

Reply:

“The cost for the application is  £7,500 in total. The application will be maintained by CYC IT team as part of their remit.

 

Lewisham council has achieved a saving of £20,000 in the first 6 months of using this application. I believe we will achieve similar savings. In addition there were significant reductions in graffiti and fly-tipping.” 

 

(ix)       From Cllr Healey

“Regarding CYC’s first phone application, what procurement activity was undertaken for the ‘grot-spot’ reporting smart-phone app to ensure that future applications as envisaged by Digital York (point 6 in the Cabinet Papers for 3 April 2012) can be purchased according to the principles of the CYC Procurement and Commissioning Strategy?”

 

Reply:

“The purchase of the license complied with the Council’s Procurement and Commissioning strategy and financial regulations for a procurement of this financial value.

The application only required minimal development to tailor it to York’s requirements and this was done using the in-house development team. It is a ‘re-skinned’ Keep Britain Tidy application and has had proven success in Lewisham and across London, delivering savings to many councils. The Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, personally backs this initiative.”

 

(x)        From Cllr Reid

“With reference to the plan to introduce a text reporting system for graffiti in the City, could the Leader confirm:

 

i.              How many reports of problems with graffiti were received by the Council during the last 12 months and how many included a photograph?

ii.            How much the proposed new system has cost to research, design and implement?

iii.           How many successful prosecutions there were during the last 12 months against people who were responsible for graffiti in the City?”

 

Reply:

“The council is not introducing a text reporting system. We are introducing a phone application that is multi-platform.

 

1.         It’s unfortunate that the former Executive Member for Neighbourhood Services takes such a negative view of service improvement and innovation.  If smartphones are becoming more widely used then she should welcome this development as a new means of quickly reporting and tackling problems out in our wards.

 

She should be aware as the former Executive Member for Neighbourhood Services that the council has not recorded how many photograph-related graffiti problems are received.  I do not have the details of how many reports were received in total during the past 12 months but I will ask officers to provide her with these figures.

 

2.         Councillor Keith Aspden has already asked this question and I have answered it.

 

3.         CYC officers are in liaison with the Police, who hold these records, and we can provide an update on this following the meeting.”

 

(xi)    ?From Cllr Runciman

“If he is frustrated by lack of debate about LEPs what is he doing to encourage it?”

 

          Reply:

“I mention it at every business meeting I attend. I spoke about it to the economic scrutiny meeting when I was called before it and I have mentioned it at every council meeting since the election. I have also negotiated the Leeds City Region summit to be held in York this year. This should engage more businesses in York.”

  

(xii)      From Cllr Healey

“Regarding the minimum wage, does the Leader disagree with the former Labour Government’s introduction of a different level of minimum wage for those under 21, or has this only come to his attention since the General Election of 2010?”

 

Reply:

“I have always opposed this differential. I believe if you do the same work, you should get the same wage irrespective of age. I also disagree with the differential widening under recent announcements of the Tory-led Government.”

  

(xiii)     From Cllr Orrell

“Given the last paragraph in the Leader’s report about Labour’s manifesto commitments can he confirm progress on his following manifesto commitments:

i.      Increase spending on Ward Committees?

ii.     Increase spending on road maintenance?

iii.   City Centre swimming pool?

iv.    More money on libraries?”

 

Reply:

1.         “Labour reversed a Liberal Democrat cut to ward committee funding for the 2011-12 financial year by £16k at the Full Council meeting on 30^th June 2011. Liberal Democrats voted against.

2.         Labour increased the road resurfacing budget from Liberal Democrat levels for the 2011-12 financial year by £60k at the Full Council meeting on 30^th June 2011. Liberal Democrats voted against.

3.         Labour included our long-term aspiration for a city centre swimming pool in the Local Development Framework changes approved at the Full Council meeting on 30^th June 2011. Liberal Democrats voted against.

4.         Labour reversed a Liberal Democrat cut to library staff budgets for the 2011-12 financial year by £40k at the Full Council meeting on 30^th June 2011. Liberal Democrats voted against.

 

On 20^th January 2012 Liberal Democrats were quoted in The Press newspaper as saying that Labour honouring these manifesto pledges for the 2011-12 financial year was somehow inappropriate and was a “mini-spending spree.”

 

We reversed almost £1m of Liberal Democrat cuts and I am proud to have done so. This included reversing an 80% to Holocaust Memorial Day funding.

 

Liberal Democrats voted to cut these areas outlined in the question at the Executive meeting on 15^th February 2011. Liberal Democrats voted again to approve these cuts at the 24^th February 2011 council meeting. Liberal Democrats voted against reversing some of these cuts including the 80% Holocaust Memorial Day cut at the 7^th April 2011 council meeting. Then the Liberal Democrats voted against the reversal of these cuts at the 30^th June 2011 council meeting.

 

Yet when interviewed by the Jewish Chronicle on 8^th July 2011, Liberal Democrat group leader, Councillor Carol Runciman said, “"I have visited the camps in Germany and Poland and if the day needs this budget, then it should have it". I don’t need to politically attack on this issue; this picture speaks for itself.”

 

B       Cabinet Recommendations

 

Neighbourhood Working – A New Approach

 

Cllr Alexander moved, and Cllr Crisp seconded, the following recommendations contained in Minute 118 of the Cabinet meeting held on 6 March 2012:

 

“[That Council] approve a change in the Council’s constitution in respect of ward committee arrangements, as set out in the Annex to the report.”

 

A named vote was then requested and taken on the recommendation, with the following result:

 

For	Against	Abstained
Cllr Alexander	Cllr Aspden	Cllr Horton (Lord Mayor)
Clllr Barnes	Cllr Ayre
Cllr Boyce	Cllr Barton
Cllr Burton	Cllr Brooks
Cllr Crisp	Cllr Cuthbertson
Cllr Douglas	Cllr D’Agorne
Cllr Fitzpatrick	Cllr Doughty
Cllr Fraser	Cllr Firth
Cllr Funnell	Cllr Galvin
Cllr Gunnell	Cllr Gillies
Cllr Hodgson	Cllr Healey
Cllr Jeffries	Cllr Orrell
Cllr King	Cllr Reid
Cllr Levene	Cllr Richardson
Cllr Looker	Cllr Runciman
Cllr McIlveen	Cllr Taylor
Cllr Merrett	Cllr Warters
Cllr Potter	Cllr Watt
Cllr Riches	Cllr Wiseman
Cllr Scott
Cllr Semlyen
Cllr Simpson-Laing
Cllr Watson
Cllr Williams
24	19	1

 

The above recommendation was declared CARRIED.

 

RESOLVED:       That the above recommendation in respect of Neighbourhood Working be approved. ^1.

 

Community Stadium: Business Case

 

Cllr Alexander then moved, and Cllr Gunnell seconded, the following amended recommendations to Minute 119 of the Cabinet meeting held on 6 March 2012, and set out in the additional papers circulated around the chamber:

 

“[That Council:]

(i)    Note the business case as presentedincluding the financial risks and potentialresultant liabilities that may arise as aresult of proceeding with the scheme.

(ii)   Notethat the business case is to be submittedto the Planning Committee in support of the outlineplanning application submitted by Oakgate Group plc

(iii)  Note that Members of the Planning Committee will determine thatapplication on itsplanningmerits

(iv)   Approve the inclusion in the CapitalProgramme of the Community Stadium scheme at the value of £19.2m to be funded from £14.85m of S106Contribution, £4m of Prudential Borrowing (£200k 11/12 and £3.8m 12/13) and £350k York City FC.Members should note that the funding from York City Football Club could be higher than a £350k contribution and this would result in a reduction of theCouncil’s contribution.

(iv)   Approve the release of the balance ofthe Council’s £3.8m Prudential Borrowing as shown in the capital programme in 12/13 in order to progressthe Community Stadium project.

(v)    Approve, that as part of the release ofthe £3.8m capital funding available, that£2m be allocated for the new athleticsfacility with York University and committo the delivery of the project. Note therisks outlined in paragraph 50 of thereport that if the stadium scheme doesnot proceed that £2m of CYC Prudential

Borrowing will be spent on deliveringathletics provision for the City.

(vi)   Notethe risks set out in the risk management section of thereport, and the financial implicationssection.

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

 

RESOLVED:       That the above recommendation in respect of the Community Stadium business case be approved. ^2.