Agenda item

(i)        To the Cabinet Leader from Cllr Ayre:

“How much has the Council spent to date on work connected with the tender for the Community Stadium and how much taxpayers’ money does the Leader now expect to invest in the project in total?”

Reply:

“The Council has spent a total of £299k on the tender process for the Community Stadium Project to date.

The level of public money that I expect to invest in the project is exactly the same as the figure agreed by the previous administration, £4m plus the initial feasibility and project costs incurred prior to this administration taking control of the project.  It was your administration that took the decision to spend the public’s money on this project and the level that funding would be.  We simply provided the vision, political commitment and support to turn it into a reality.”

(ii)      To the Cabinet Member for Health, Housing and Adult Social Services from Cllr Jeffries:

“How long has Oliver House been empty, how much is it costing to maintain the building and when will it be brought back into use?”

Reply:

“I will give the same answer as when Cllr Aspden asked a similar question at the meeting of Council on the 28^th March. 2013

I have no involvement in decisions on the future of the Oliver House site. Property services and the Capital Asset Board are dealing with this and this is not within my portfolio area.

I suggest Cllr Jeffries asks the question of the correct Cabinet Member.”

(iii)     To the Cabinet Leader from Cllr Hyman:

“Would the Council Leader confirm how much the Council spent in assessing the suitability of the Bonding Warehouse for use as a media centre?”

Reply:

“A DIF bid of £25k has been spent on feasibility of the project but this is work largely transferred into the business plan for the Digital Media Arts Centre and is now being used to inform the planned site for the project; the Guildhall.  I met with the owners of the Bonding Warehouse last week and I am pleased progress is being made to return this iconic York building back into use.”

(iv)    To the Cabinet Leader from Cllr Aspden:

“The Cabinet Leader recently welcomed the cross-party support for the Poverty Strategy. Would he agree with me that a cross-party approach to supporting residents with welfare reforms is also needed? If so, would he agree to set-up a cross-party welfare reform working group as soon as possible, including opposition councillors and relevant council officers, through which the council can objectively assess the effects of welfare changes in York, ensure that the council is using its staff and resources to help and inform the most vulnerable, and collectively lobby the government where necessary?”

Reply:

“Poverty in the city is a serious and very real issue for many that my administration wants to tackle and we will work constructively with anyone who shares that goal.

The work being undertaken by the Poverty Action Group is taking the impact of the Government's welfare reforms into account.  This work is also intrinsically linked to the work of the Without Walls partnership at which the three main parties are represented.

It is clear Government reductions in local housing allowance, the 'bedroom tax', non-dependent deductions, the council tax benefit cut, disability living allowance cut, incapacity benefit cut, child benefit cut, tax credit cut, real term cut through 1% uprating and the introduction of the household benefit cap will make our vision to eradicate poverty all the more challenging. 

Given that both local Liberal Democrats and Conservatives support these Government cuts, I don’t believe the two parties are on the same page as Labour in their commitment to tackling poverty.

What is required is political leadership from the council, working in partnership with others such as community groups, charities, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and The Press to get to grips with the issue of poverty and that is exactly what we are doing.

But I welcome any lobbying of the Government you and your Party can undertake against these changes, however late in the day it may be.”

(v)      To the Cabinet Member for Health, Housing and Adult Social Services from Cllr Barton:

“Does the Cabinet Member for Health, Housing & Adult Social services agree with the statement from York City of Sanctuary’s report that there are 4500 refugees on the Council’s housing waiting list and does she plan to fast track these applicants when the breath taking number of affordable homes cited on the Local Plan become available?”

Reply:

“I would point out to Cllr Barton that nowhere in the York City of Sanctuary report does it state that there are 4500 refugees on the Council’s waiting list - if there were 4500 refugees on the Waiting List this would make York the first city in the UK to have 100% of its housing list made up entirely of refugees. It states:

“There is also the reality of 4500 already on the CYC waiting list”.

Indeed, elsewhere in the report, it states quite clearly ‘the number of refugees in the city is quite small.’ In the conclusion, the report says,’ the scale of the situation is not insurmountable and overwhelming as some sections of the media would have us believe.’

The number ‘4500’ is mentioned as a reference to the total number of people currently on the CYC social housing waiting list – as a rounded approximate number at the time the report was written and the vast majority of these people have local connections in York. I would refer Cllr Barton to the Local Plan which will aim to help address the needs and the current crisis in housing.

It would appear that Councillor Barton has inadvertently misread the Report in framing his question. It is therefore not possible to agree with a statement which does not exist in the Report and I would state that such a suggestion is completely untrue, is without foundation and could lead to the spread of false information and possibly lead to undue alarm amongst residents. Finally, such a statement has the potential to damage the social cohesion of our City.

I trust Cllr Barton will take time to re-read the Report in order to recognise that his initial reading, and comments, are inaccurate. 

Priority for housing in York is as set out in North Yorkshire Home Choice (NYHC) scheme, which has just been reviewed and the revised policy agreed at my public decision session earlier today.  All affordable housing in York is allocated in accordance with this policy.

All applicants for housing in York are managed through the NYHC where applicants can register online, paper applications are registered within a week.” 

(vi)    To the Cabinet Member for Health, Housing and Adult Social Services from Cllr Reid:

“Given the importance of the document, will the Cabinet Member make the ‘Get York Building Survey’ available for members and/or members of the public?”

Reply:

“I would remind Cllr Reid that the findings from the GYB consultation were summarised in the report considered by Cabinet in February.  The conversations with individual developers, as she should realise being an experienced Councillor, often touched on commercially sensitive information and as such has been deemed confidential and it is not appropriate for this to be shared with the wider public.  However, it is acknowledged that not all the information from developers is commercially sensitive and I have asked officers to prepare a redacted version.”

(vii)   To the Cabinet Member for Crime and Stronger Communities from Cllr Barton:

“Can the Cabinet Member for Crime & Stronger Communities describe what tangible results were evident as a result of the £5000 invested in York City of Sanctuary by the CYC Transformation Fund and can she advise if she has plans to give further funds to this organisation?”

Reply:

“This £5k was one-off, ‘seedcorn’ funding to get the organisation established and to assist it to begin providing services to those who come to the city seeking sanctuary.

The first Annual Report shows that in only 12 months York City of Sanctuary has developed working partnerships with key groups at work in the city, including York Racial Equality Network, Refugee Action York, North Yorkshire Police, local schools and both Universities to name but a few of the 63 organisations which are signed up to assist the York City of Sanctuary aims of encouraging the culture of welcome, security, and support to all who need to claim sanctuary in the city.

York City of Sanctuary has fulfilled every part of the four elements of the plan of action it presented with its application for Transformation Funding.  It is now providing services directly to sanctuary seekers in York, offering advice and support to enable employment, access to housing, legal advice, and education. This is a helpful contribution to community cohesion in the city and to integrating people from a wide variety of cultural and ethnic backgrounds.

The organisation has also sought to explore the reality of life for those who come to the city in need of refuge. That information is helpful, for example, in providing factual evidence about the numbers of refugees in the city, and of the issues they face. Amongst other groups for whom York City of Sanctuary has concern are those fleeing domestic violence, sexual, physical, or mental abuse; and those fleeing exploitation and racial harassment encountered in other parts of the UK. They too are part of the community, and are vulnerable and in need of support. That is also part of the organisation’s remit. 

York City of Sanctuary has not applied for further funding from the Transformation Fund.  However, the Cabinet passed a resolution of support for the organisation’s aims, back in October 2011, and will continue to provide support wherever appropriate.  For example, I note that the Cabinet Member for Leisure, Culture and Tourism will shortly be setting up a small bursary scheme which, through City of Sanctuary, will enable people to access cultural and active leisure provision who would otherwise not be able to.

I would like to congratulate York City of Sanctuary on the progress it is making.”

(viii)  To the Cabinet Member for Crime and Stronger Communities from Cllr Orrell:

“The so-called ‘community contracts’ are widely unpopular and often ignored in wards by members across political parties. Will the new Cabinet Member recognise that a different form of community governance is needed in York?” 

Reply:

“Community contracts are just part of the new ways of working in communities for ward councillors and are simply a tool that ward councillors can use to engage more effectively with their communities. Many ward councillors from all parties are using these new engagement tools very successfully to bring positive benefits to their local communities. The tools are completely flexible and put the onus on individual councillors to find the most effective ways of working in their wards. The Communities and Equalities team have recently produced a series of fact sheets to enable councillors to make better use of these tools and it is a shame that Cllr Orrell did not attend our recent open day to learn more about these fact sheets and help to shape the way we move forward with ward working, making community contracts successful in all wards. I hope that all ward councillors will engage positively with the work the team is doing to support us all to engage with our communities more effectively.”

(ix)    To the Cabinet Member for Transport, Planning & Sustainability from Cllr Firth:

“During the closure period on Lendal Bridge, what will be the average increase in:

a)   Mileage

b)   Journey time

c)   Cost

for private car drivers who otherwise would have used the bridge?”

Reply:

“Your question cannot be answered with certainty – that is why we are undertaking the trial. However the worst case scenario from the modelling work that was undertaken, which ignores, positive transfers to alternative forms of transport that we and coalition Government policy supports, shifts in times of travel, etc., indicates a 0.82% increase in km travelled, but is based on 2010 traffic levels which are higher than current flows. For the 630 motorists currently continuing to make cross river journeys by car in the hour over lunch,

a)   The average increase in mileage = 1.3 miles

b)   Journey time to do this extra 1.3 miles = 5.7 minutes

c)   Additional cost = 37 pence

However if there was an 11% shift of drivers from cars to buses, cycles and walking, the average traffic reduction in a study of similar measures across Europe referred to in the previous Cabinet paper, there would be a reduction in distance travelled (pcu/km) of 10.3% within the simulation network (roughly the CYC boundary). There would also be an improvement in driving conditions with an increase in average speed from the current 17.4 kph to 17.8 kph in the Inner Ring Road and Water End cordon area (it would go down to 16.9 kph without any overall traffic reduction), an increase of 2.3% in average speed.”

(x)      To the Cabinet Member for Finance, Performance & Customer Services from Cllr Cuthbertson:

“How much were the Council’s fitting out and removal expenses connected with its move to West Offices and how does this compare to the allocated budget and Could the Cabinet Member also outline what steps he – and his predecessor – took to ensure that the move was completed within budget?”

Reply:

The total cost of the West Offices move is likely now to come in £50,000 under budget and on schedule which is a significant achievement for projects of this kind.

Cabinet Members have received regular verbal briefings on this matter to ensure that the project remains on budget and on schedule.”

(xi)    To the Cabinet Leader from Cllr Ayre:

“Will the Cabinet Leader agree to join me for a walk along the section of Millennium Way that passes through Heworth Without so he can fully understand the impact of the Local Plan Proposals on the natural environment?”

Reply:

“I appreciate the invitation but I have been to the site before and I fully understand the possible impact of the draft local plan on this site and others.”

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

“The Annual Report of the Head of Internal Audit found significant failings in budget control in adult social care and “no clear links between control of expenditure and budget responsibility in some areas”. Could the Cabinet Member explain what plans she has put in place to deal with this issue?”

Reply:

“A programme of work is under way to address the issues identified in the Audit Report.  Officers in Adult Social Care are working with the Director of Health & Wellbeing and his team to improve finance and care management processes, and to review again any opportunities to reduce current spending levels.  This is monitored by a Board, chaired by the Director of CBBS.

With specific regard to the links between control of expenditure and budget responsibility, Councillor Jeffries may be aware that, as with many Councils, York has arranged the Care Management Teams, who commit much of the budget spent on the support needs of vulnerable people, on the basis of the ‘care pathway’.  This is recognised as good practice and the pathway is in line with guidance from Think Local Act Personal, which I understand you support.

However it does mean that one manager is unlikely to be responsible for authorising all the costs of care across the care pathway. I am assured that as an interim measure named managers have been nominated to take responsibility for budgets, and to work with their colleagues in respect of the activity across the pathway for that budget.  This will be more time consuming, and so alternatives are now being explored.

The report also highlights the need to take action to mitigate significant overspends identified through budget monitoring.   As Cllr Jeffries will be aware there will always be sensitivities around savings which may need to be made in this area of Council business and it is essential that options are always considered carefully in respect of the potential impact on vulnerable people. We are after all dealing with people who often have complex needs which I am sure she understands.

There is work underway to improve the information flows for budget monitoring which it is anticipated will allow earlier identification of issues, and thus provide greater opportunity to address issues earlier. However, I would remind her she is a member of the Party of Government who has nationally raised the minimum care standard to substantial and is cutting money to Councils at a time of increasing need.”

(xiii)  To the Cabinet Member for Leisure, Culture and Tourism from Cllr Barton:

“The recent explosion in the numbers of geese populating the City and the consequential amounts of excreta they leave in some of our most attractive tourist sites are creating a deterrent to tourists and residents alike visiting the City Centre.  Can the Cabinet Member for Leisure, Culture & Tourism explain what measures have been taken to implement a humane cull in an attempt to minimise the danger they present in terms of both health and safety?”

Reply:

“I accept that the presence of geese can be off putting to some; others like them and regard them as part of our city wildlife.

What I am curious to know is how Cllr Barton knows that there has been an explosion of geese in the city?

Does he really spend his time as a Councillor going around counting the number of geese in the city?

If he has, I would be grateful if he could let officers know what number he has found so that we can compare his findings with the numbers of geese in the city in 2009 when the national Bird Management Unit  based at Sand Hutton undertook, on the Council’s behalf, a major study on geese and management options. (The estimated population at the time was 700 geese).

This study did offer the option of a humane cull during the summer moult  (by cervical dislocation, lethal injection or shooting) – but also said that it would have to be undertaken every 2 - 5 years as non-breeding birds may also choose to moult elsewhere and can then repopulate an area the following year if not deterred.

This is a complex issue for which there is no simple solution.  But we have been playing our part by treating eggs on nest sites on Council land which helps to keep the populations down.  We will continue to do this.”

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

“Could the Cabinet Member outline the estimated unit cost of each Council house/flat (including a notional site value) being built on Newbury Avenue, Chaloners Road and Beckfield Lane, and with a number of 2 bedroomed properties currently being advertised for sale on the open market in York priced at around £100,000, and would the Cabinet Member say how much of the New Homes Bonus she is prepared to invest in purchasing these properties with a view to adding them to the pool of social rented accommodation available in the City?”

Reply:

“Cllr Reid should already be aware, from previous Council reports that the total scheme cost for the first phase of new council homes is in the region of £7m. Exact costs will be determined via a competitive tendering process for the building of the new homes. As part of the development of the programme, costs will be allocated out to each development. It is therefore not appropriate for the council to publicly set out before any competitive tendering process what it anticipates the estimated costs of each unit to be.

In relation to the open market sale of 2 bed homes for £100k, a quick search on Right Move today (16^th July) shows only 5, 2 bed properties for sale under £100k, all of which are flats, 3 of which appear to be previous RTBs. There is one terraced property at £110k which seems to need a lot of work and then other terraced properties start at over £120k. As Cllr Reid will know if she has ever lived in one of the smaller terraced properties in York these are not ideally suited to families and often have poor insulation due to their age.”

(xv)  To the Cabinet Member for Transport, Planning & Sustainability from Cllr Reid:

“Would the Cabinet Member join with me in congratulating First York on arranging to consult with passengers before deciding what changes to introduce to routes in the autumn, and would he also join with me in urging First to publish the service reliability data that it holds for each route to ensure an informed discussion on the need for changes?”

Reply:

“I am very pleased that following discussions I had with First and other local bus companies through the York Quality Bus Partnership, First York are undertaking such an open consultation, with sessions at 8 different venues across York. This demonstrates their awareness of the strength of feeling concerning the local bus network and the need for the Company to address issues with a number of their commercially operated services.

The Council has supported First through the provision of officer time at all 8 events to field any questions concerning the wider bus network (First is the largest of 10 bus operators in the City) and in recognition of the fact that not all of the questions from the public would relate purely to services operated by First Group.

We understand that First will be looking to implement changes resulting from the consultation over the coming months and we look forward to working with them and with the City’s other bus operators to deliver a local bus network which better meets the needs of York’s residents.

With regard to service reliability data, First operates services on a commercial basis, and continue to regard this data as commercially sensitive. Certainly this data is key to understanding how services might be improved and The Council will continue to work with First and with other bus operators, to encourage them to demonstrate, including to the public, that network improvements are evidence based and that any changes made produce improvements.” 

(xvi) To the Cabinet Member for Transport, Planning & Sustainability from Cllr Aspden:

“Last July, I asked the Cabinet Member what the Council is doing to fulfil the requirement of the Localism Act to maintain a list of "assets of community value”. Could he update Council on this work?”

Reply:

“I understand, although it’s not my portfolio responsibility, that the process for creating and maintaining a list of ‘assets of community value’ have now been agreed and will be implemented shortly.

Guidance on the process details and the application form on the Council’s will be published on the Council’s website in September.”

(xvii)   To the Cabinet Member for Finance, Performance & Customer Services from Cllr Cuthbertson:

“Can the Cabinet Member state how many Freedom of Information requests have not been answered within the required 20 day timeframe for each month from May 2011 to June 2013?”

Reply:

(xviii)  To the Cabinet Member for Transport, Planning & Sustainability from Cllr Reid:

“How much funding does the Cabinet member intend to devote to reducing the number of accidents on roads in west York where there are no plans to introduce a 20mph limit, what schemes will this funding be used for, and what reduction in the annual toll of casualties can we expect to see as a result of this investment?”

Reply:

“There has been a large amount of work undertaken in the west of York to reduce speeds and accidents over recent years. This was the focus of our early traffic calming work in the early 1990’s when we started introducing area wide traffic calming schemes in residential areas (e.g Chapelfields, Danebury Drive, Kingsway West etc.). We continued this work by targeting distributor roads with high speed and accident problems (such as Gale Lane and Foxwood Lane) and then introduced School Safety Zones at every school in the area. We have also introduced numerous junction improvements (such as replacing the Beckfield Lane/A59 junction with signals and building the Moor Lane A1237 roundabout), plus many new and improved crossing facilities for peds, and numerous on and off road cycling facilities (e.g along the orbital cycle route).  We also continue to monitor accident patterns on an annual basis and look to tackle any concentrations identified. A recent example would the work to improve conspicuity of the small Acomb “link road” roundabout at the Wetherby Road junction.

Separate capital budgets are provided for Local Safety Schemes, Speed Management and Danger Reduction schemes which is allocated to prioritised locations across the city.  There is a £150k allocation in the 12/13 Capital Programme for these schemes.

The Local Safety Scheme budget is allocated following a review of the accident data so that the most effective use of the funding is made. This has been focussed on sites where a cluster of accidents have occurred and changes to the road layout will reduce the likelihood of incidents occurring. Owing to works undertaken across the city over the last 10 years there are now fewer locations which fall into this group. Our 13/14 local safety scheme programme does not include any cluster sites in the west York area, which tends to suggest the roads in this are experiencing  low accidents numbers, which is a considered to be a consequence of the work we have done in the area over recent years.

Speed Management schemes are identified through the Speed Management process which is operated with the Police and Fire Service. This process deals with locations where speeding has been identified by the public as a concern.

The Danger Reduction budget is allocated to schemes where there is a perception of danger identified by the public but no injury accidents have been recorded.

In addition we also undertake Road Safety Education, Training and Publicity (ETP) projects, which tend to cover the whole of York, (with partners) and also work on Regional basis, with NYCC via 95 Alive and on a wider Yorkshire and Humber basis.   We all have similar issues and similar vulnerable road user groups and pooling resources and funding in this way gives us more for our money. The current Road Safety Action plan includes a wide range of activities including: School Crossing Patrols, Cycle Training, iTravel road safety pledge, Road Safety Education, 95 Alive Campaign, Publicity and Campaigns focused on young drivers etc.

Regionally we have been working on a motorbike awareness campaign called “someone’s son” which as a spin off has given us access to a DVD aimed at motorcycle riders.  We have also recently worked and produced regionally a DVD for commuting cyclists, called the “Urban Cycling Guide” which is partly filmed in York.”

(xix) To the Cabinet Member for Transport, Planning & Sustainability from Cllr Reid:

“In congratulating the Minster authorities on the success of their ‘York Minster Revealed’ project, does the Cabinet Member share my concern about the conflict between some fast moving cyclists and pedestrians in the new “Minster Piazza” on Deangate and would he agree to sign the area as a pedestrian priority zone?”

Reply:

“The Piazza scheme is a bold scheme in a very active area. The space allows for access by pedestrians, cyclists and horse drawn carriages, as previously. All users are expected to use the space with due consideration and respect. The issue of potential user conflict was considered during the detailed design of the scheme, and it was not considered appropriate or necessary to seek to prohibit cycle access. Introducing a cyclist ban is likely to push some cyclists onto the very narrow and already congested Gillygate corridor, and discourage others from cycling, contrary to long standing Council policy. There is recognition that there will be some initial teething issues. Officers have liaised with those involved in both New Road, Brighton and Exhibition Road, London, both of which experienced some initial problems. To seek to counter any early downsides to this project, officers (working with the Minster) are looking to assist people and monitor how people use the space and move through it. To that effect we will be placing some additional temporary signage on the approaches while users adapt to the new layout. These will seek to raise awareness of the presence of pedestrians, cyclists and horse drawn carriages and encourage sharing and consideration. This being a measure which has been successful elsewhere. The scheme will be subject to a stage 3 Safety Audit (as is standard practise) and a further audit could also be undertaken in 12 months time.

Officers are hopeful that through these actions such initial concerns will be allayed.”

(xx)  To the Cabinet Member for Leisure, Culture and Tourism from Cllr Ayre:

“How much has been raised by the organisers towards the cost of the “Arts Barge” project, when will a business plan for running the barge be published, when will the barge be open for business and what process is in place to recover the Council’s contribution - to the purchase price of the barge - should the project fail?”

Reply:

“The Arts Barge Project is currently looking at feasibility options around mooring sites on the river. They continue to raise funds and have placed a deposit on a boat. It is scheduled to be operating during 2014. Lawyers for the Council and Arts Barge Project have agreed that a ‘charge’, in effect a mortgage, be secured against the boat to protect the Council’s investment, should it be made.”

(xxi) To the Cabinet Member for Environmental Services from Cllr Reid:

“The yearly rubbish and recycling calendars came to an end on 31st March 2013 with the interim April-June calendars running out at the end of last month. Could the Cabinet Member outline when people will be given information on the new collection rounds and could he explain why there has been a delay in getting this information to residents?”

Reply:

“All residents will get a new calendar in advance of changes to the collection rounds. 

Making changes to a service like refuse and recycling collections whilst keeping disruption for residents to an absolute minimum, when there is an increasing demand but reducing resources due to massive Government cuts, is complicated and challenging.

New and different vehicles are required; consultations have to be undertaken with staff and the unions; support services such as the customer centre and the post code checker need to be updated and checked.

As part of the collection round changes we are adding recycling services to nearly 2,000 properties that do not currently have them, demonstrating our deep commitment to increasing recycling.”

(xxii)   To the Cabinet Member for Transport, Planning & Sustainability from Cllr Aspden:

“Following the unsuccessful bid to secure government funding for the A19 update in Fulford, could the Cabinet Member confirm that the Council will work with and consult local residents on any future bids or schemes?”

Reply:

“Unfortunately the short timetable available for preparation of the A19 Pinch Point Fund bid disappointingly did not allow time for our usual consultation processes. The local community will be fully involved in any future funding bids provided a reasonable period of time is available for the bid and dependent on the level of detail required at the bidding stage. If funding is secured then we will work with and consult local residents to determine the extent and design the most appropriate scheme for the area.”

(xxiii)  To the Cabinet Member for Transport, Planning & Sustainability from Cllr Ayre:

“In regards to the Local Plan consultation, can the Cabinet Member state how many deliveries by Local Link have had significant failures, how much the contract is and whether any money has been recouped?”

Reply:

“Your Local Link delivered to 85,000 households in York (separate from the magazine) and were the most cost effective option for this service, at a total cost of £5,400– equating to 0.0.6p per household for delivery.

Overall 2.62% of total households may have been affected with either non-delivery or within Your Local Link. This is within the distributer’s customer guarantee of 95% delivery (and Royal Mail’s 92% delivery guarantee). Additional leaflets were redistributed to those affected areas that we were made aware of at no cost to the council.”

(xxiv) To the Cabinet Member for Environmental Services from Cllr Reid:

“Could the Cabinet Member outline what progress has been made in introducing charges for second green bins and for replacement black rubbish wheeled bins and for recycling boxes?

Reply:

“Both of these are progressing well. It has been vital to involve the customer centre and ICT in this process and there are a number of issues that have had to be investigated and resolved, for example, as the charges for garden bins are classed as distance selling, legal have had to be consulted on the terms and conditions, which include a cooling off period and potential for refunds.”

(xxv)  To the Cabinet Member for Finance, Performance & Customer Services from Cllr Ayre:

“How many temporary or interim staff who are on FTE salaries of £40k or more are working for City of York Council through ‘Work with York’ or other temporary/interim staffing agencies and which departments are they in?”

Reply:

“One -  in Office of the Chief Executive.”

(xxvi) To the Cabinet Member for Finance, Performance & Customer Services from Cllr Ayre:

“This year citizens were allowed to pay their council tax in 12 parts, instead of 10. Could the Cabinet Member outline what the Council did to inform home owners/renters, social tenants and those in receipt of benefits of these rights, what promotion of the new arrangements took place, and how many home owners/renters, benefit recipients, social tenants elected to pay in 12 monthly instalments (overall and as a proportion by group)?”

Reply:

“The council as part of the Public Consultation exercise for Local Council Tax Support (LCTS) actively promoted this option to customers including:

·        13 Public Consultation Sessions;

·        Individual letters to all affected customers;

·        Outbound telephony (to those customers where we had numbers and where they were at home when we called);

·        All staff made aware when contacted by customers.

All CT customers were made aware as it was one of the options on the Council Tax Bill sent to all customers.

Where customers have got into difficulty with their account this is an option we have always provided to try and support customers.

The number of customers paying by 12 monthly instalments this year is 1,332 broken down as follows:

·        Direct Debit 1^st Month LCTS 125

·        Direct Debit 1^st Month non-LCTS 359

·        Direct Debit 15^th Month LCTS 100

·        Direct Debit 15^th Month non LCTS 224

·        Direct Debit 15^th Month Councillors 2

·        Cash Payers 1^st Month LCTS 152

·        Cash Payers 1^st Month non-LCTS 141

·        Cash Payers 15^th Month LCTS 118

·        Cash Payers 15^th Months non-LCTS 111

It is not possible to split this by tenure type as the system does not hold this information for CT payers.”

(xxvii)  To the Cabinet Member for Leisure, Culture and Tourism from Cllr Ayre:

“Will the Cabinet Member state which meetings of the ‘Community Stadium Project Group’ have been attended by key stakeholders e.g. the football club, rugby club, athletics club?”

Reply:

“Meetings of the Community Stadium Partnership Forum were held in September ’12, October ’12 and January ’13 and attended by the Football Club and the Rugby League Club, with the exception of the Rugby League Club in October. These meetings came to end with the beginning of the procurement process. As contact between each key stakeholder is now of a commercially sensitive nature regular meetings and discussions have continued on an individual basis with the Football Club, the Rugby League Club and the Athletics Club.”

(xxviii)To the Cabinet Member for Leisure, Culture and Tourism from Cllr Ayre:

“Will the Cabinet Member confirm publically that the only reason for the delay in the stadium project is the ‘newt issue’?”

Reply:

“Yes.”

(xxix) To the Cabinet Member for Leisure, Culture and Tourism from Cllr Ayre:

 “On the 5^th October 2009 the Cabinet Member proudly announced she would set up a leisure reserve to fund a city-centre pool. She repeated this promise again in November 2009 stating "we are the party that will do rather than offer empty promises". Can she therefore state how much is currently in the promised leisure reserve?”

Reply:

“A great deal has changed since October 2009, not least the election of the current Coalition Government which has slashed the Council’s funding.

What has also changed, however, is the level of supply and demand for swimming in York.  Whereas Cllr Ayre’s administration presided over a shortfall in swimming provision we now have a more than adequate supply of facilities.

In planning the city’s requirement this administration works with Active York (the city’s sport & active leisure partnership). 

The Built Sports Facilities Strategy produced by Active York is currently out to public consultation. This document compares supply and demand for sports facilities and shows that the city currently has a surplus of approximately 900m² of pool space.

The document also sets out areas of deficiencies in provision, particularly for indoor sports hall space, and some specialist outdoor facilities (for example cycling facilities). 

We are prioritising our work with Active York to find ways of delivering the facilities that the community has actually identified a need for. 

I am pleased to say that my work to deliver the community stadium, that had stalled miserably under Cllr Ayre’s administration, will drive forward a range of new facilities, such as the closed circuit cycle facility at York Sports Village.”

(xxx)  To the Cabinet Member for Leisure, Culture and Tourism from Cllr Ayre:

“Given Labour's pledge to provide a city-centre swimming pool, yet its omission from their strategic plan to 2030, could the Cabinet Member define what she would say a "long term aspiration" is?”

Reply:

“I would refer the Member to the answer to the previous question.  In addition, I would urge him not to belittle an administration having aspiration, vision and drive, however unfamiliar these things may be to him.

As an administration we move with the times, being realistic about the huge cuts we face from Government, and adapt accordingly. Here endeth the lesson.”

(xxxi) To the Cabinet Member for Leisure, Culture and Tourism from Cllr Ayre:

“Can the Cabinet Member state the 2012/13 budget for each of the council leisure facilities and the total actual spend?”

Reply:

·        “For Yearsley:  The Budget was £387k and the actual spend £369k

·        In the case of Energise: the budget for the grant to York High School was £274k, whilst the actual grant required was £271k - I am pleased to say that due to our investment in Energise the grant required in this financial year will be reduced to just £161k

·        For Waterworld: The Budget was for £83k of income, whilst the actual received was £41k (the budget is higher than the income received due to an error made in the budget process by the previous administration).” 

(xxxii)  To the Cabinet Member for Transport, Planning & Sustainability from Cllr Reid:

“What is the cost of establishing and maintaining the ‘i-travel’ web site and could he explain what the technical problem has been with the feed from the traffic cameras to the website?”

Reply:

“The iTravel York website is the cornerstone of the LSTF funded iTravel York programme, providing a dynamic ‘one stop shop’ to advise the communities we serve with sustainable travel options. The website also acts as a conduit for all new developments in all areas of travel affecting communities, schools, businesses and all travel modes.

The cost of establishing and maintaining the web site was included in the original bid document to the department of Environment, (DfT), for LSTF funding. This cost, over the life of the LSTF funding 2011 -2015, (within the approved bid) was for £38.6k. This figure having been arrived at following a thorough test of the market place and formal procurement procedures. The overall award to York from the DfT LSTF funding was £4.6m.

The main body of the iTravel York web site is now a fully functioning site and a total of £35.4k has been spent. The remaining balance of the £38.6k will be spent on maintenance and upgrades and is on target to meet the projected financial profile to 2015.

The iTravel York web site enables us to link to other websites but iTravel York do not maintain those sites it links too.

The recent technical problem related to the upgrade of the communications between the CCTV cameras on street and the central control facility from analogue to the digital ‘dark fibre’ network. This resulted in the previous computer system used to ‘grab’ images off the live camera feeds no longer working (it was built to deal with analogue inputs only). The provider of our digital control equipment does not produce an  equivalent system to grab images from digital feeds and so has had to develop one specifically to meet our needs. As with all bespoke computer systems, there has been a period of developing and testing for this bespoke system, and delays in completing this have lead to the loss of CCTV images from the website. Staff are now in the final stages of commissioning this new system and are finalising the list of which cameras will be presented on the website. This process should be completed within the next week and then live images will once again be available via YorkLIVE and i-travel.”

(xxxiii)              To the Cabinet Leader from Cllr Ayre:

“Regarding the Tour de France, how many new posts are being created or adapted to support the TDF – on which scale and at what cost to the Council?”

Reply:

“One post: ‘Regional Director – Tour de France Legacy’.

It is proposed that this will be funded by a £5k contribution from each of the region’s local authorities, so York’s contribution would be £5k if agreed.”

(xxxiv)              To the Cabinet Leader from Cllr Ayre:

“Besides the £500,000 hosting fees already paid by the citizens of York to secure the Tour De France what other expenses are forecast to be incurred, (broken down by category where possible)?”

Reply:

“Anyone reading Coun. Ayre’s question would be forgiven for thinking he is opposed to York being part of Le Grand Départ and hosting the stage 2 start of next year’s Tour De France.  He may indeed be happy to confirm this is the case.

The Government is still to be clear about the allocation and governance of its £10m contribution. I discussed this matter last week with district and county leaders and it is a matter we are eager to resolve, for my part to ensure the cost to the local taxpayer is minimised and that it represents excellent value for money when judged against the economic gain for York businesses.

The detailed specifications are being finalised with ASO and will be come forward in September in the form of a published report.”

(xxxv)               To the Cabinet Leader from Cllr Ayre:

“In responding negatively to the government proposal to allow conversions of offices to housing, the Cabinet Leader said there is a shortage of office accommodation in York. Could he tell me how many square feet of office space is currently vacant in the City?”

Reply:

“I can provide some clarity for Coun. Ayre so he is entirely clear on my position.  What I support is conversion in some cases where it is appropriate but not a one size fits all, carte blanche policy for converting offices into homes.  Whilst we have some office stock available, we need to protect the availability of Grade A office stock which is more limited, particularly in the city centre, in order to attract more businesses to the city.

York must retain the ability to decide on preventing conversion of this type of stock if we are to ensure the future business needs of the city are being met.

However, even with carte blanche to convert offices to homes, this would still not provide sufficient homes to address York’s acute housing shortage.   York needs more homes but office to homes conversions is not an alternative to a credible Local Plan.

There is currently a total of 562,096sq ft  (17.95%) of York’s office space being marketed as available (source CYC Economic Development commercial property database)

Of this:

27% is Grade A – 152,388sqft

58% is Grade B – 332,264sqft

11% is Grade C – 63,548sqft

4% are Listed Buildings – 22,676sqft

Of the total office stock % is being marketed as available:

City Centre – 7.73%

Clifton Moor – 2.71%

Clifton Park Business Park – 1.97%

Edge of City Centre – 0.68%

Elvington – 0.14%

Monks Cross – 1.93%

Northminster Business Park – 0.34%

Outside Ring Road – 0.34%

Station Business Park – 0.20%

Within Ring Road – 0.75%

York Business Park & Millfield Lane – 0.87%

York Science Park – 0.87%

This is made up of Grade A, B, C & Listed Buildings % within:

Of the office space currently being marketed as available the following has been approved for change of use:

City Centre – 9816sqft  (Grade C – 8556sqft and Listed Buildings 1260sqft

Monks Cross – 8402sqft (Grade B)”

(xxxvi)              To the Cabinet Leader from Cllr Ayre:

“Does the Cabinet Leader think it is acceptable that opposition councillors were prevented from seeing key evidence for the Local Plan prior to the public consultation?”

Reply:

“All councillors should be entitled to see documentation when reports are complete.  The council will follow what it is legally required to do to fulfil its obligations on the Local Plan.

Coun. Ayre should remember that the Local Plan evidence base is an extension of the LDF evidence base, which all political parties have discussed through the LDF Working Group.

The key thing is that opposition Members are able to see the entire evidence base, which they are.”

(xxxvii)            To the Cabinet Leader from Cllr Ayre:

“Given the Labour Leader’s public statement in 2010 that opposition councillors should not be prevented from seeing key Community Stadium documents because of commercial confidentiality, can he explain why his administration is now preventing councillors from seeing documents for this very reason?”

Reply:

“In 2010 the Community Stadium project was in crisis. York Knights were not on board and my predecessor made promises to people that could not be kept.

It was clear the project required political leadership and Labour provided it. Since then we seen a planning application passed, money from developers provided to pay for most of the Community Stadium and we are currently out to procurement, so good progress is being made. Making the business case of the project publicly available at this critically important stage would threaten the successfully delivery of the project, due to its commercial sensitivity.

The time for opposition councillors to influence the Community Stadium has gone as the focus is now on this administration delivering. This is a matter for officers and commercial confidentiality for York City FC and York City Knights is crucial.”