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	1 July 2014	Minute 16: Capital Programme Outturn 2013/14 and Revisions to the 2014/15 Programme         http://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=8327&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 eighteen questions on the written report, submitted by Members in accordance with Standing Orders. The first four questions were put and answered as follows and Cllr Alexander undertook to provide Members with written answers to the remaining questions

 

(i)     From Cllr Steward

“When the leader refers to good growth can he give examples of companies in York he believes are currently delivering bad growth?”

The Leader replied:

“I would not draw that distinction, rather that some growth is less beneficial to York and to the public purse where employers are delivering an increase in jobs but paying the minimum wage.

 

We want to support economic growth but clearly this is something that the council cannot deliver on its own and we need to work with businesses in the city. Clearly, there is an issue in York where we have large numbers of low paid jobs and high paid jobs but insufficient jobs in between. This means although York residents have the opportunity to come off job seekers allowance and become employed, their income levels barely increase and they remain on benefits.

 

My argument would be to make work more attractive by increasing wage levels, thus reducing the benefits bill. The Conservative Liberal Democrat Government's answer is to demonise those on benefits and reduce access to this support. We want to build on the work we have already started with initiatives like the living wage which has seen two of the largest private sector businesses in the city, Aviva and Nestle, playing a key role.”

 

(ii)    From Cllr Aspden

 

“Why did the Cabinet Leader fail to convince even his West Yorkshire Labour colleagues on the Combined Authority that they should support York’s Rail College bid?” 

 

The Leader replied:

“Because the leaders never had a discussion to support any specific bid. Not all my colleagues on the West Yorkshire combined authority are Labour and the combined authority did not back any bid.”

 

(iii)   From Cllr Barton

 

“Would the Leader expand on his statement saying that “£175,000 will be invested in the Public Environment in Hungate,” explaining what will acquired with this money and how it represents an investment rather than simply a purchase?”

 

The Leader replied:

“My I first say how disappointed I am that you will be serving only one term on the council due to circumstances outside your control. I would not dream of attacking you for this as some Conservatives have attacked members of my party for making the same decision.

 

An investment can be a purchase. For example you could purchase an item that will increase in value as an investment or such an item could leverage additional funds.

 

The funding allocated will be used to improve the public environment in this area which is desperately needed after being left derelict for many years. It is an investment as such infrastructure attracts new businesses to York, just as Kings Square has done.”

 

(iv)   From Cllr Cuthbertson

 

“Whilst thanking ‘Welcome to Yorkshire’ for securing the event and the various organisations involved in delivering it, will the Cabinet Leader detail how much taxpayers’ money was spent on the Tour de France in York and what objective measures and targets are in place to judge the Tour’s “legacy”?

 

The Leader replied:

“The Tour de France coming to Yorkshire is amongst the best publicity the region has ever received. And is certainly good news for the tourist industry.

 

Whilst there are still a number of outstanding issues to resolve around the finances the latest indications show that the event has been managed within the £1,664k budget set by the council. The final costs of the event will be included in the report back to cabinet anticipated in October 2014 which will detail the outcomes of the event.

 

According to PWC, the concomitant impact of the Tour will exceed the £100m figure originally anticipated.

 

I am pleased Labour in York had the foresight to bid for the Tour and despite the talking down of the Tour by the Liberal Democrats, we delivered a fantastic event that will be remembered for years to come.

 

The Tour de France legacy will be:

 

Economic:

 

As well as the impact on tourism from 10 hours of continuous advertising for York and Yorkshire to half of the world's TV networks - this was the first Grand Depart to have a UK govt/UKTI and LCR sponsored business festival which showcased the city's businesses. As a result a memorandum of cooperation was signed with IAR the leading bio-economy cluster in northern France. Major bio-economy companies attended over three days.

 

Cultural:

 

Again the first Grand Depart to have a cultural festival, this brought work and audiences for over 100 events in the city. There will be a lasting cultural legacy.

 

Community:

 

This was the largest mass participation event ever to take place in the city and we will build on this in sustained work with communities for example through street closures, street parties and play days.

 

Cycling:

 

Cycle Yorkshire is taking the cycling legacy to get more people cycling more often. This already includes more cycling events, investment in cycling infrastructure such as the new velodrome, collaboration between road safety teams on urban and rural cycling safety, and between cycling business. Cycleyorkshire.com is the website to go to for more on this.”

 

(v)    From Cllr Healey

 

“In light of the leader’s comments in his report on employment and economic growth and his tweet that the savings from the recent council strike will be given to foodbanks and health and social care, can the leader give:

1.   The total amount saved?

2.   The breakdown of how he will split this between foodbanks, health and social care?

3.   The minutes and attendees at the meeting where this decision was taken?”

 

Reply:

“The exact figure will be unclear until next month but should it save a similar figure to last time there was industrial action, it will be in the region of £100k. On this basis, £10k will go to supporting food banks, the rest to health and adult social care.

 

While it's not entirely clear whether this is another Conservative attack on foodbanks and the service they provide to those struggling as a result of Coun. Healey's party's huge cuts to the most needy, I can assure him that the formal decision to agree this support for foodbanks will take place in due course.  The intent to take this decision I have publicised as I believe it is important that people know quickly where the money will be going.

 

Members of the public and opposition Members will have every opportunity to attend the meeting when this decision is taken and voice their opposition to it if they wish, or indeed support it.  The Labour Group is fully supportive of this action.”

 

(vi)   From Cllr Reid

 

“Will the Cabinet Leader now accept that with over 1,000 planning applications having already been approved over the last 18 months for the construction of homes on brownfield land in the city (none of which were identified in the draft Local Plan) his planned attack of the Green Belt around York is unnecessary and irresponsible?

 

Reply:

“Will Councillor Reid now accept that York's requirements for homes cannot be satisfied by brownfield sites alone and can she welcome the progress being made on these stalled sites by Labour compared to the Liberal Democrats? I ask a very simple question. How many homes do the Liberal Democrats support and where should they be built? Until this is answered the Liberal Democrats are not having a proper debate about the future of the city, they are simply posturing.”

 

(vii)  From Cllr Runciman

 

“Why does the Leader make no reference to the housing bubble generated under the last Labour government which pushed house prices beyond the reach of many in the city?”

 

Reply:

“There are any number of reasons - because the Labour Government wasn't solely responsible, because the Leader's report is that of the activity of the leader and the council rather than a Government that left office a number of years ago, because to do so would mean I couldn't without drawing the public's attention to your party's position on the Local Plan and its role in driving up house prices for those privileged enough to own a home and its abandoning of those who aspire to own a home in York but can't afford to.

 

It is about the 'now' and what Government or other agency decisions are affecting York. I do not believe Labour when in Government built enough homes just as I don't think the previous Liberal Democrat council did either. Labour in York, now, under my leadership is addressing this issue. The vast increase in planning consents has been recognised by your colleague in a previous question.”

 

(viii)From Cllr Jeffries

 

“How much did the Fairness Conference cost to organise and can he explain why the money was better spent on this than on the direct relief of poverty in York?

 

Reply:

“I refer you to the answer I gave to the question put by the main opposition Group Leader.”

 

(ix)   From Cllr Steward

“When the leader refers to wanting companies over ‘a certain number of employees’ to pay the Living Wage what is that number and why is he drawing a level?”

Reply:

“Clever people can make that decision but it is clear that some small to medium businesses are not in a financial position to pay the living wage. Therefore those who can afford to should and those that cannot should be helped to through Government support.”

 

(x)    From Cllr Ayre

 

“How many York based employees of Nestle have received a pay rise as a result of the company becoming a living wage employer and what is this number expressed as a proportion of the York based Nestle workforce?

Reply:

“I do not have access to how many Nestle employees are York residents or not but I believe it will be significant as Nestle is a large employer.”

 

(xi)   From Cllr Barton

 

“Can the Leader identify, with the bypass as a geographical guide, the boundary between “urban” and “rural” York within this new Gigabit City and would he admit that the current developers plans primarily benefit Labour Wards?”

Reply:

“This is commercial sector investment and the 3x companies Sky, Talk Talk and City Fibre are currently working up the detail of their scheme and will share it in the Autumn. I cannot answer on their behalf but the level of coverage is expected to be very significant. We have also successfully bid for Government and other match funding to enhance connectivity in parts of the City where the private sector will not service.

 

I know that you are very aware of how great an achievement getting this investment is for the City and that we are very aware of the need to reduce any digital divide based on either location or wealth.

 

I find it fascinating the Conservatives argue for free markets unless it gives the outcome they do not like. We committed in 2011 to have 95% of York premises with access to Superfast Broad Band by 2014, this has been achieved as the current coverage level of Superfast Broad Band within the whole of York is now at 96%, from a start point of 8% in 2011.”

 

(xii)  From Cllr Reid

 

“Will the Cabinet Leader apologise to council taxpayers for his decision to sell off– at the low point in the recession – this valuable development site which is now worth considerably more than the Council received for it?”

Reply:

“I can only assume from this question the Liberal Democrats think the sale should not have proceeded, that Hiscox should not have come to York and they did not want the 350 jobs that came with it. I can only also assume the Liberal Democrats would have been happy with the site remaining derelict, of no social value to the city.

 

If you want a real example of massively undervaluing a public asset you need only look at your party's role in the sell off of Royal Mail.

 

Let's get real and stop picking holes in success stories - it just talks down the city and York deserves better.”

 

(xiii)From Cllr Aspden

 

“Could the Cabinet Leader outline the confirmed or estimated allocation York will receive under the two Local Growth Deals?”

Reply:

“York has been granted £1.7m for York Central, £8m for Biovale and the Biohub and a total of £10.9m for development at Askham Bryan college. These priorities were strongly reflected in both  Leeds City Region and York North Yorkshire & East Riding Strategic Economic Plans, recognising York's importance to both economic geographies.

 

In addition, because of this Labour administration's commitment to constructive engagement with the West Yorkshire Combined Authority, York's transport priorities will be taken forward through the West Yorkshire Plus Transport Fund. As I hope the Councillor is aware, in recognition of the compelling case for investment in growth set out in the Leeds City Region Strategic Economic Plan and the robust governance that the Combined Authority represents, the coalition Government awarded the City Region a total of £1billion in a 20 year settlement - the largest total award in any Growth Deal. This provides the opportunity for schemes such as access to York Central and improvements to the Outer Ring Road to be delivered.”

 

(xiv)From Cllr Jeffries

 

“How does the Cabinet Leader defend the poor engagement with volunteer groups under his tenure with his comments in his report?”

 

Reply:

“I would argue we engage more meaningfully with volunteers than the previous Liberal Democrat administration and this was recognised by the comments mentioned in my report from volunteers from Foxwood Residents' Association. This was the first time the council actually said thank you - and it won't be the last.”

 

(xv)  From Cllr Reid

 

“Will the Cabinet Leader say when he actually expects the development of the Hungate site to be completed (including the non Hiscox elements)?”

Reply:

“Construction work should be starting quite soon following the completion of on-site archaeological works and that construction may take up to two years.  Officers are seeking an update on this situation which I will share with Members shortly.”

 

(xvi)From Cllr Cuthbertson

 

“The Cabinet Leader says that “all premises” within urban York will have the opportunity to have a fibre connection”. How much will it cost (installation/rental feesetc) a resident to have access to this network?”

Reply:

“Talk Talk and Sky are yet to announce their pricing structure.”

 

(xvii)  From Cllr Reid

 

“Is the Cabinet Leader aware that questions have been raised about possible state aid implications of extending the use of the CityFibre network (that was built to provide services to City of York Council) and if he is what action has been taken to ensure that there are no state aid implications for the Council?”

Reply:

“Yes and all of our work is legally compliant. Appropriate due diligence and legal compliance has been carried. We have made use of huge infrastructure that Liberal Democrats procured. Lack of vision held back the city for a long time in delivering on the digital economy. I am pleased to say Labour has reversed this trend and York is now set to have the fastest internet speeds in the country.”

 

(xviii)From Cllr Reid

 

“Whilst the Cabinet Leader was happy to pick up the keys for the new Headquarters from a project that he inherited from the previous administration, does he not feel that democracy was enhanced by there being an all-party scrutiny review of the Hungate Project?”

 

Reply:

“Not particularly. I think it was a stick to beat your administration with and it worked.”

 

 

B       Cabinet Recommendations

 

Capital Programme Outturn 2013/14 and Revisions to the 2014/15 Programme

 

Cllr Alexander moved, and Cllr Williams seconded the following recommendation contained in Minute 16 of the Cabinet meeting held on 1 July 2014:

 

Recommended:           That Council approve the restated 2014/15 to

2018/19 programme of £203.851m as

summarised in Table 3 and detailed in Annex

A of the report. 1.

 

Reason:              To allow the continued effective financial

management of the capital programme from 2014/15 to 2018/19.

 

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

 

Resolved:                     That the above recommendation in respect of the Capital Programme be approved.