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	17 July 2012	12.         i) Minute 12:    13.         Capital Programme Outturn 2011/12 and Revisions to the 2012/13-2016/17 Programme
Cabinet	9 October 2012	Minutes to follow:  ii) Minute 33: Sale of Hungate Site iii) Minute 34: Admin Accommodation Portfolio – further property rationalisation

[Copies of these draft minutes, marked to follow, together with the confidential annexes to these reports have now been added to this agenda.]                  

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 six questions on the written report,  submitted by Members in accordance with Standing Orders. The first five questions were put and answered as follows and Cllr Alexander undertook to provide Members with written answers to the remaining questions:

 

i)                From Cllr Runciman: “While the report mentions the inward investment of Hiscox, it fails to mention the predicted loss of 160 jobs in York through the closure of the Royal Mail sorting office and the loss of the York postmark. Could the Cabinet Leader outline what representations he made on these issues?”

 

The Leader replied:

This issue has been a sad one over many years. I recall debates about it in this chamber before the general election. My representations were made through Hugh Bayley and the CWU who have been heavily involved in this issue from the beginning. I do not believe the current or last government has been fair to Royal Mail and I have previously pledged to stand up for Royal Mail remaining in public hands.

 

ii)           From Cllr Ayre: “Could the Leader outline what additional borrowing the Council will incur as a result of the deal to sell the Hungate site?”

 

The Leader replied:

I would like to refer you to paragraph 22 on page 25 of the October Cabinet agenda. It said

 

“The financing cost of the total current borrowing (the £3.77m) is currently being met from the Council’s treasury management budget, prior to the receipt for the land. In receiving a lower capital receipt than assumed, there is no immediate additional cost, given the borrowing has in effect already taken place. The capital receipt will actually improve the Council’s overall debt position in the short term”.

 

This figure is taken into account in the £190m capital programme as outlined in performance monitor 1. There is no impact on short term borrowing. Long term the impact is £1.6m.

 

However it makes sense to pursue this deal. The office and hotel complex will create 600 jobs and great £42m GVA.  I also welcome the comments sent by your Group which welcomed the job creation this sale will bring.

 

Not only does this sale create jobs and GVA, it also progresses a prime site in our city centre which this council wrote off £1.1m on in an abortive council office transfer scheme in 2009.

 

iii)      From Cllr Runciman: “Could the Leader outline the proposed timetable for implementing the living wage as proposed in the Liberal Democrat budget and the Fairness Commission’s recommendations?”

 

The Leader replied:

At the moment I cannot. We are currently working through the implications, timescales and negotiations required. This isn't something that can be implemented instantly due to negotiations required with trade unions and implications on terms and conditions as well as possible pay claims for more senior staff. The Liberal Democrat proposed budget amendment was unsustainable and was not the living wage. I also welcome the Liberal Democrat's support for this policy that we announced within six months of this administration. I am not sure why it took your Group so long to support such a policy when you could have implemented the living wage at any point over your time in control.

 

iv)      From Cllr Cuthbertson:  “Further to the Leader’s comments on both the DIF and EIF Funds, could he provide a detailed breakdown of the economic benefit of each scheme funded through his ‘Delivery & Innovation Fund’ and ‘Economic Infrastructure Fund’ respectively?”

 

The Leader replied:

It should be first noted that the purpose of the Delivery and Innovation Fund (DIF) is to facilitate the development of new and innovative ways of working, support areas requiring one-off investment and support major project delivery. It is not the intention that all schemes funded by the DIF have a direct economic impact. Whilst many schemes funded by the DIF may have direct and indirect economic benefits, social impact of the schemes is also an important consideration, as is the future capacity and capability they generate. Many of the DIF schemes are feasibility type studies as the essential first step in establishing the expected benefits (economic or otherwise) of a larger, future scheme (likely to be funded through another route).

 

Economic component to DIF schemes include:

York800

Direct: York800 events have so far generated £6.6m for the city’s economy; footfall up 13% on normal over charter weekend.

Indirect: promotion of York as a tourist destination, national publicity for the city

 

Queen’s Visit

Direct: 20,000 additional visitors in the city on the visit day with approx £1m economic impact

Indirect: promotion of York as a tourist destination; publicising future York events

 

York Gold

Direct: 80,000 visitors associated with the torch relays with approx £2.4m economic impact.

 

Guildhall RIBA competition

Indirect: The competition brief will require the exploration of potential uses but certainly including a strong suggestion that high value uses including serviced office accommodation taking advantage of improved City Centre and Riverside Connectivity and related leisure opportunities.

 

Warden Call - scope for Social Enterprise

Indirect: Feasibility study for new service delivery model. If taken forward, it is envisaged that a variety of different functions would be explored which may also lead to new employment opportunities within the new organisation.

 

Oliver House - Health & Social Care Hub

Indirect: Scheme is a feasibility study for a second phase. Second phase is estimated to create six part time and one full time jobs plus a number of volunteer, training and apprentice opportunities will be created within the organisations based in the Hub, with the aim of increasing employability.  A number of further permanent posts will be created as voluntary organisations develop new projects based in the Hub. 

 

Bonding Warehouse - Digital Media Hub

Indirect: feasibility study. CYC will assess the contribution of the future phases of the project to the economy, measured by GVA, if invited to proceed to the next stage. Initial indications are potential for up to 200 jobs (combined direct and indirect).

 

Public Wi-Fi - Museum Gardens area

Indirect: Will have positive impacts on the day trip, event based and longer stay visitor trade to the City and the associated Service and transport sectors. Additional visitors to the Mystery Plays over short term. Indirect jobs created through the support of the tourism sector.

 

Rail Policy

Indirect: Securing improved rail transport links between York and the UK will bring and retain jobs in the City. Enabling access to significant transport funding from central government.

 

Upper Floors Review

Indirect: By demonstrating the scope of opportunity to bring empty upper floors back into use and the financial viability of doing so, the project is expected to act as a catalyst for investment. In doing so it would lead to the creation of construction related jobs, increase the number of people living in the city centre and hence also it’s diversity which in turn will bring further economic and social benefits. It will assist in delivering much needed housing at market, intermediate or affordable rents.  Conversion of underused property to residential will bring additional revenue through council tax and, depending on timescales new homes bonus too. 

EIF spend and benefits

 

Project	EIF Spend	Jobs	GVA	Leverage	Economic benefits - narrative
Park and Ride	£2,500,000	Indirect impact	Indirect impact	£15m DfT funding	Improved connectivity, leading to greater economic opportunity for all residents; improved footfall in the city centre
Better Bus Fund	1,665,000	Indirect impact	Indirect impact	£2.9m DfT funding	Improved connectivity, leading to greater economic opportunity for all residents; improved footfall in the city centre
Digital, media and cultural centre (subject to due diligence; agreed in principle)	1,400,000	377 direct and indirect	Indirect impact	£1m LEP Funding £1.3m ERDF	Inward investment and new starts enabled through the provision of space
High Growth Business Support (SCY)	80,000	150 indirect	£1m indirect		Delivery of strategy and deliverables to support media arts industry including Digital Media and Cultural Centre Identification of and development of projects that will add to the city’s growing capacity in the biorenewables/biosciences industries Production of regular reports on issues/opportunities in the IT/digital, creative and biosciences industries, along with other high growth industries as appropriate Growth in number of jobs in high growth industries Growth in GVA from high growth industries
Tour de France Bid	50,000		In London, generated £75m additional GVA – even 5% of this impact for York would be £3.75m		Increased brand recognition of York as a destination for business, visitors and living (as measured by market perceptions work) to 190 countries via international broadcasting, and Increased footfall for the event in the region of more than 25% (using Olympic torch relay as a benchmark) Increased longer term footfall from return visitors (99% of visitors would return and 94% would recommend to family and friends from 2009/10 Yorkshire Visitor Survey) Potential for increase in spend in the visitor, retail and leisure economy Increase in proportion of visitors from overseas markets – currently 5% (as per Fact 2009, Visit York)
Reinvigorate York Initial Project	200,000	Indirect impact	Up to £320K		An increase in visitor numbers – most likely from repeat visits An increase in business investment and diversity of that investment – either through growth of existing city centre businesses and/or the attraction of more new investment An increase in GVA – the estimate provided by English Heritage is that public realm investments of this type contribute up to £1.6 for every £1 expenditure

 

These details have been published in previous cabinet papers.

 

v)       From Cllr Ayre: On the Tour De France bid, could the Leader provide a complete analysis of where money has been spent and where York’s bid stands in comparison to rival locations?

 

The Leader replied:

The Yorkshire bid for the Tour de France is a bid by Welcome to Yorkshire with the support of many local authorities. Welcome to Yorkshire will not provide the financial breakdown of this bid so as not to jeopardise the bid or itself by releasing commercially confidential information. York has committed £50k towards the bid. The Gross Value Added (GVA) is projected to be £73m. This was outlined in 17^th July Cabinet papers.

 

The Tour de France is the largest annual sporting event in the world, with 2bn spectators worldwide watching either live or on TV/internet/radio. The Grand Depart will be broadcast on 100 TV channels, 70 radio stations, 400 newspapers and press agencies, 70 websites, that is to say 2,300 journalists representing 35 nationalities (using 2011 figures), broadcasting in 185 countries on 92 channels, of which 60 transmit live coverage; and receiving 14 million unique visitors to its website, generating a platform for showcasing the cities in which the event takes place.

 

Benefits to London in holding the Grand Depart was £88m to the region and £35m media coverage.

 

There is a rival bid from Scotland, but I believe we are in a great position to be successful given the hard work that has gone into Yorkshire’s bid and the reaction of organisers on their visit to the region.

 

vi)      From Cllr Cuthbertson: In light of his comments on the benefits advice office, could the Leader provide a detailed breakdown of performance times over the last 18 months in the processing of new and changed circumstance council tax and housing benefit claims?

 

Reply:

I have listed below the performance data over the past 18 months.

 

Benefits Customer Contact  April 2011- March 2012

 

 

 

Benefits Customer Contact April 2012 – September 2012

 

 

 

 

NEW CLAIMS
2011/12
New Claims (Receipt Date to Calculation)
Month	No of New HB Claims	Average Days to process HB Claims	No of New CTB Claims	Average Days to process CTB Claims	Average Days to Process all New Claims
Apr	296	19.41	328	20.61	20.04
May	325	24.39	339	26.78	25.61
Jun	313	22.56	336	27.56	25.15
Jul	358	20.41	363	20.28	20.34
Aug	325	24.55	301	26.95	25.71
Sep	333	31.74	321	31.71	31.72
Oct	416	27.30	384	26.87	27.09
Nov	370	32.28	364	31.40	31.84
Dec	272	31.03	270	34.49	32.76
Jan	435	32.53	418	32.90	32.71
Feb	397	22.36	398	23.80	23.08
Mar	340	22.15	361	25.35	23.80
YTD	4180	26.05	4183	27.30	26.67
2012/13
New Claims (Receipt Date to Calculation)
Month	No of New HB Claims	Average Days to process HB Claims	No of New CTB Claims	Average Days to process CTB Claims	Average Days to Process all New Claims
Apr	274	28.77	285	30.29	29.54
May	424	25.92	434	29.96	27.96
Jun	216	29.36	241	32.11	30.81
Jul	435	28.43	431	29.44	28.93
Aug	330	13.22	334	27.14	20.22
Sep	333	24.53	326	23.38	23.96
YTD	2012	24.91	2051	28.65	26.79

 

CHANGES OF CIRCUMSTANCE
2011/12
Changes of Circumstance (First contact date to Calculation)
Month	Number of HB Changes	average days to process a change on HB	Number of CTB Changes	average days to process a change on CTB	Average Days to Process all changes
Apr	328	20.61	413	13.34	16.56
May	802	14.54	610	14.97	14.73
Jun	780	13.23	518	14.56	13.76
Jul	1171	8.74	821	8.66	8.71
Aug	1247	7.89	873	7.85	7.88
Sep	1119	13.66	767	14.13	13.85
Oct	1011	15.49	665	18.17	16.55
Nov	708	18.65	514	19.14	18.86
Dec	619	19.09	427	19.78	19.37
Jan	990	18.81	1298	11.24	14.51
Feb	7119	1.07	467	15.92	1.98
Mar	1659	7.78	661	15.11	9.87
YTD	17553	8.20	8034	13.61	9.90
2012/13
Changes of Circumstance (First contact date to Calculation)
Month	Number of HB Changes	average days to process a change on HB	Number of CTB Changes	average days to process a change on CTB	Average Days to Process all changes
Apr	609	12.14	444	13.80	12.84
May	999	18.25	687	19.03	18.57
Jun	699	16.26	480	17.93	16.94
Jul	1099	16.15	617	19.85	17.48
Aug	781	14.87	554	16.98	15.75
Sep	802	18.01	591	15.52	16.95
YTD	4989	16.19	3373	17.38	16.67

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	NEW CLAIMS AND		CHANGES COMBINED
2011/12
NEW CLAIMS AND CHANGES COMBINED N181 (First contact date to Calculation)
Month	Number of New Claims	average days to process a New Claims	Number of Changes	average days to process a change	Average days to process News and Changes
Apr	624	20.04	741	16.56	18.15
May	664	25.61	1412	14.73	18.21
Jun	649	25.15	1298	13.76	17.56
Jul	721	20.34	1992	8.71	11.80
Aug	626	25.71	2120	7.88	11.94
Sep	654	31.72	1886	13.85	18.45
Oct	800	27.09	1676	16.55	19.96
Nov	734	31.84	1222	18.86	23.73
Dec	542	32.76	1046	19.37	23.94
Jan	853	32.71	2288	14.51	19.46
Feb	795	23.08	7586	1.98	3.98
Mar	701	23.80	2320	9.87	13.10
YTD	8363	26.67	25587	9.90	14.03
2012/13
NEW CLAIMS AND CHANGES COMBINED  (First contact date to Calculation)
Month	Number of New Claims	average days to process a New Claims	Number of Changes	average days to process a change	Average days to process News and Changes
Apr	559	29.54	1053	12.84	18.63
May	858	27.96	1686	18.57	21.74
Jun	457	30.81	1179	16.94	20.81
Jul	866	28.93	1716	17.48	21.32
Aug	664	20.22	1335	15.75	17.23
Sep	659	23.96	1393	16.95	19.20
YTD	4063	26.79	8362	16.67	19.98

 

 

B       Cabinet Recommendations

 

Capital Programme Outturn 2011/12 and Revisions to the 2012/13 – 2016/17 Programme

 

Cllr Alexander moved, and Cllr Simpson-Laing seconded the following recommendations contained in Minute 12 of the Cabinet meeting held on 17 July 2012.

 

“i)      [That Council] use £1.5m of Prudential Borrowing for the Primary School Strategic Programme in 2011/12 with the associated revenue implications to be met from the Children’s Services budgets and repaid over a period of 25 years from savings made as a result of the amalgamation of the schools. ^1.

 

 ii)   [That Council] approve the restated 2012/13 to 2016/17 programme as summarised in Table 3 and detailed in Annex 1 of the report, taking account of the re-profiling of schemes.” ^2.

 

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

 

RESOLVED:                That the above recommendations in respect of the Capital Programme Outturn for 2011/12 and Revisions to the 2012/13 - 2016/17 Programme be approved.

 

Saleof the Hungate Site

 

Cllr Alexander moved, and Cllr Simpson-Laing seconded the following recommendations contained in Minute 34 of the Cabinet meeting held on 9 October 2012, set out in the papers circulated around the chamber:

 

i)             “ [That Council]agree to commence negotiations for the sale of the Hungate site to the Hiscox development partner, Bidder 2. ^3.

 

ii)        [That Council]delegate authority to the Director of Customer  and Business Support Services the power to finalise an agreement for the sale of the land to Bidder 2 at a commercial market value being not less than the figure set out in Annex 2 of the report  ^4.

 

iii)       [That Council] agree to the amendment of the capital programme financing, reducing capital receipts by £1.627m, with a corresponding increase in prudential borrowing.” ^5.

 

 

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

 

RESOLVED:                That the above recommendations in respect of the sale of the Hungate site be approved.

 

Admin Accommodation Portfolio – Further Property Rationalisation

 

Cllr Alexander moved, and Cllr Simpson-Laing seconded the following recommendations contained in Minute 35 of the Cabinet meeting held on 9 October 2012, also set out in the papers circulated around the chamber:

 

i)         “[That Council] agree the proposals for amending the design of Hazel Court to accommodate additional staff and an increased range of facilities. ^6.

 

 

ii)        [That Council] be requested to create a capital budget of £618k to be funded from revenue savings achieved by exiting the 3 additional buildings.” ^7.

 

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

 

RESOLVED:                That the above recommendations in respect of the Admin Accommodation Portfolio be approved.