Agenda item

To consider the following Notices of Motion under Standing Order 12:

 

A – Motions referred from the Cabinet in accordance with Standing Order 12.1(a)

 

To deal with the following Lendal Bridge notice of motion referred back to Council by Cabinet,  from its meeting on 6 May 2014, after consideration of the evaluation of the trial. A copy of the Cabinet report and minute are attached as Annexes 1 and 2 (Annexes A to G of this report are available online only).

 

(i)        From Cllr Reid

 

“Council notes the report in The Press on 27th February which revealed important facts about the Lendal Bridge closure.

 

Council further notes that:

1.   The Labour Cabinet’s six-month trial closure of Lendal Bridge should have finished at the end of February

2.   The closure has brought widespread criticism from local residents, business owners, tourists and tourist groups

3.   Negative media and social media coverage has been generated to the detriment of our city

4.   The closure has failed to significantly improve overall bus journey times

5.   Traffic displaced by the closure has caused increased congestion elsewhere in the city e.g. Foss Islands Road and Water End at Clifton Bridge

6.   Officers have admitted that the trial closure has had little impact on overall air quality

7.   The Labour Cabinet Member responsible has admitted that the signage at the start of the trial was “very confusing”

8.   Around 45,000 motorists have received fines for crossing the bridge.

 

Council therefore resolves to ask Cabinet to:

a.      immediately end the trial closure of Lendal Bridge

b.      publicly admit that the trial has been botched and to apologise for this

c.      immediately publish the raw data on the trial ahead of their detailed evaluation report

d.      commit to consulting with residents and local businesses before bringing forward any future plans for Lendal Bridge.”

 

B – Motions submitted for consideration directly by Council, in accordance with Standing Order 12.1(b)

 

(i)        From Cllr Burton

 

“Council notes the difficult trading circumstances of the high street with challenges from internet shopping and a fragile economic recovery.  Although York has one of the lowest shop vacancy rates in the country, Acomb has some of the highest concentrations of empty properties of any concentration of retail in the city. 

 

Council believes that under the Liberal Democrats City of York Council did little to reverse Acomb’s fortunes and this was a stance backed by Conservatives.  

 

Council resolves that under a Labour administration the Cabinet will receive options to consider extending business rates relief for all empty properties on Front Street being brought back into use.” 

 

(ii)      From Cllr Steward

 

“Regarding York potentially becoming a fully constituted member of the West Yorkshire Combined Authority (WYCA), council notes:

 

1.  Lack of cross-party support on a commitment which will affect York for many years;

 

2.  Lack of consultation with residents, businesses and community groups;

 

3.  That a minority of residents know about the WYCA and its implications for York, and of those who do the majority oppose membership;

 

4.  That payments have been made by the council to the Authority with nothing to show and no tangible benefits for the future;

 

5.  Disappointment that WYCA failed to back York’s bid for the Rail College.

 

Council notes that legislation requires local authorities to provide proof of support for joining a combined authority and therefore, as this exercise has never taken place, commits to an appropriate consultation period to engage with residents, businesses and community groups on membership of the WYCA and that it will take all such views into account prior to committing the City of York to permanent membership of the same.”

 

(iii)     From Cllr Runciman

 

“Council notes:

 

·        the Pupil Premium is an additional allowance to support certain groups of school-aged children and young people at risk of not achieving their potential;

·        this year’s allocation of £4,884,000 means that primary and secondary schools in York have received over £12.6 million since the Pupil Premium was introduced in 2011;

·        children entitled to free school meals are eligible for Pupil Premium of £1,300 a year for primary pupils and £935 a year for secondary pupils;

·        whilst eligibility for free school meals is the main criteria for entitlement to Pupil Premium, other groups are also entitled to the Pupil Premium, including children in care, adopted children, children in hospital schools and service personnel children.

·        Tim Farron MP, Liberal Democrat Party President, along with groups such as the Carers Trust has called for this eligibility to be extended to include young carers;

 

·        There are 113 young carers registered with the York Carers Centre; however, the number of young people undertaking caring roles in York is widely believed to be far higher;           

 

·        The Government is currently consulting on its plans to extend the Pupil Premium in April 2015 to include a new ‘Early Years Pupil Premium’ for three and four-year-olds alongside plans to move the statutory entitlement to early learning for disadvantaged two-year olds to a participation funding model; 

·        An Early Years Pupil Premium would pay early years providers up to an additional £300 for each of the estimated 359 children currently eligible in York, providing an additional £103,330 in funding every year.

This Council believes that including young carers as a category of recipient eligible to receive the Pupil Premium would enable schools and colleges to provide additional support to these young people in York.

Council further believes that introducing an Early Years Pupil Premium would help all children get the best start in life and tackle what the Sutton Trust has identified as a 19 month gap at the start of school between the most and least advantaged children.

This Council therefore resolves to ask:

·        The Chief Executive to write to the Secretary of State for Education, the Minister of State for Schools, and Dr. John Dunford OBE, the national Pupil Premium Champion, noting the contents of this motion and asking the Government to widen the eligibility for Pupil Premiums to include young carers;

·        The Chief Executive to respond to the current consultation on Early Years Pupil Premium and funding for two-year olds in support of the Government’s proposals and its plans for rolling–out the schemes.”

 

(iv)    From Cllr Looker

 

“Council notes the good work carried out by a range of organisations in the city providing safe homes for vulnerable people. Some of these and the people they help are facing an uncertain future with changed funding arrangements, tighter benefit entitlement and no clear plans for the bulk transition of existing claims to Universal Credit. 

 

Council also believes that the absence of choice that can be exercised by tenants in deciding who the housing element of Universal Credit is paid to is a particular worry.

 

Council resolves to invite the Chief Executive, on its behalf, to write to the Minister for the Department for Works and Pensions expressing concern over the roll out of Universal Credit, the implementation of Personal Independence Payments (PIPs) and difficulties with the delays in the processing of Employment & Support Allowance (ESA) claims, all affecting people in very difficult circumstances, and to appeal to the Government to resolve these issues quickly.”

 

 

A     Motions referred from the Cabinet in accordance with Standing Order 12.1(a)

 

(i)        Lendal Bridge (proposed by Cllr Reid)

 

It was moved by Cllr Reid and seconded by Cllr Cuthbertson that:

 

“Council notes the report in The Press on 27th February which revealed important facts about the Lendal Bridge closure.

 

Council further notes that:

1.   The Labour Cabinet’s six-month trial closure of Lendal Bridge should have finished at the end of February

2.   The closure has brought widespread criticism from local residents, business owners, tourists and tourist groups

3.   Negative media and social media coverage has been generated to the detriment of our city

4.   The closure has failed to significantly improve overall bus journey times

5.   Traffic displaced by the closure has caused increased congestion elsewhere in the city e.g. Foss Islands Road and Water End at Clifton Bridge

6.   Officers have admitted that the trial closure has had little impact on overall air quality

7.   The Labour Cabinet Member responsible has admitted that the signage at the start of the trial was “very confusing”

8.   Around 45,000 motorists have received fines for crossing the bridge.

 

Council therefore resolves to ask Cabinet to:

a.   immediately end the trial closure of Lendal Bridge

b.   publicly admit that the trial has been botched and to apologise for this

c.   immediately publish the raw data on the trial ahead of their detailed evaluation report

d.   commit to consulting with residents and local businesses before bringing forward any future plans for Lendal Bridge.”

 

The first amendment was proposed by Councillor Aspden and seconded by Councillor Ayre as follows:

 

“Insert after paragraph 8.

 

9. In April when challenged as to what he would do if the fines given to motorists using Lendal Bridge were proved to have been unlawful, Cllr Merrett told BBC Radio York: "Yes, I accept that at the end of the day that if we've got it wrong to that extent that I'd have to resign".

 

10. The Cabinet's decision to reopen Lendal Bridge and withdraw the appeal against the Traffic Adjudicator's ruling that the fines given out were unlawful.

 

Following the words ‘Council therefore resolves to ask Cabinet to:’

 

Delete paragrapha.

 

Replace paragraph c. with:

 

refund all Lendal Bridge fines as they were issued using an unlawful method of enforcement

 

Insert additional text

 

Council further calls on the Cabinet Member in charge of the trial to stick to his word and resign from the Cabinet; Council also calls for the Leader of the Council to take responsibility for this botched trial and resign.”

 

On being put to the vote the amendment was declared LOST.

 

 

A second amendment was proposed by Councillor D’Agorne as follows:

 

“Add a final paragraph:

 

“Council further resolves that:

The proposals for an 'independently chaired cross party congestion commission' should be brought to Audit and Governance Committee and a Leaders Meeting for consideration prior to Cabinet approval by September 2014. This should included a budget and smart targets for the work to deliver broad recommendations that are compatible with LTP3 and the Air Quality Action Plan, prior to May 2015.”

 

The second amendment was also declared LOST.

 

On being put to the vote, the original motion, was also declared LOST and it was

 

Resolved:           That the original motion be not be approved.

 

B     Motions submitted for consideration directly by Council, in accordance with Standing Order 12.1(b)

 

(i)        Business Rates, Acomb Front Street (proposed by Cllr Burton)

 

“Council notes the difficult trading circumstances of the high street with challenges from internet shopping and a fragile economic recovery.  Although York has one of the lowest shop vacancy rates in the country, Acomb has some of the highest concentrations of empty properties of any concentration of retail in the city. 

 

Council believes that under the Liberal Democrats City of York Council did little to reverse Acomb’s fortunes and this was a stance backed by Conservatives.  

 

Council resolves that under a Labour administration the Cabinet will receive options to consider extending business rates relief for all empty properties on Front Street being brought back into use.” 

 

The first amendment was proposed by Councillor Steward as follows:

 

Deletethe second paragraph.

 

On being put to the vote the first amendment was declared LOST.

 

A second amendment was proposed by Councillor Jeffries as follows:

 

Delete the second and third paragraphs and replace with the following:

 

“Council notes that additional pressure was placed on the Front Street commercial area by the Cabinet’s decisions to close the Council’s local Acomb Office in 2012, to dramatically reduce the funding that local ward committees had available to invest in the public realm at neighbourhood level, and by the Council’s decision to reduce public service standards such as the number of litter and salt bins available in the Acomb/Westfield area.

 

Council further notes that the present administration has allocated funding in excess of £5 million for projects to “reinvigorate” the city- centre while spending only £7,764, of an allocated £30,000 budget, on improvements in the Acomb commercial area.

 

Council therefore calls on the Cabinet to take the following action:

1.   Consider options for extending business rates relief for long-term empty properties in the Front Street area which are brought back into use, while giving full support and publicity to the availability of increased business rates relief for existing small shops and businesses as championed by the Business Secretary, Vince Cable MP.

2.   Agree to initiate a comprehensive regeneration package for the Front Street area including the development of a public/private investment plan aimed at transforming the safety, reputation and appearance of the whole area.

3.   Take immediate steps to uplift the streetscape including improvements to cleanliness, footpaths, back lanes and lighting while renewing/painting street furniture and providing better ice clearance standards in winter.

4.   To use its powers to encourage the diversification of the type of business and retail outlets available in the area while resisting a proliferation of betting shops, amusement arcades and similar establishments.

5.   Work with the Acomb Alive team, traders and local residents to ensure that a street market is established in the area as soon as possible

The Council also records its appreciation for the work of residents and traders which has resulted in an increase in the number of social, arts and other activities taking place in the Front Street area. Council further places on record its belief that the increase, in the number of new businesses setting up in Acomb during the last year, reflects its growing confidence in the future of the neighbourhood”.

 

The second amendment was also declared LOST.

 

On being put to the vote, the original motion, was CARRIED and it was

 

Resolved:           That the original motion be approved. ^1.

 

(ii)      West Yorkshire Combined Authority (proposed by Cllr Steward)

 

“Regarding York potentially becoming a fully constituted member of the West Yorkshire Combined Authority (WYCA), council notes:

 

1.  Lack of cross-party support on a commitment which will affect York for many years;

 

2.  Lack of consultation with residents, businesses and community groups;

 

3.  That a minority of residents know about the WYCA and its implications for York, and of those who do the majority oppose membership;

 

4.  That payments have been made by the council to the Authority with nothing to show and no tangible benefits for the future;

 

5.  Disappointment that WYCA failed to back York’s bid for the Rail College.

 

Council notes that legislation requires local authorities to provide proof of support for joining a combined authority and therefore, as this exercise has never taken place, commits to an appropriate consultation period to engage with residents, businesses and community groups on membership of the WYCA and that it will take all such views into account prior to committing the City of York to permanent membership of the same.”

 

On being put to the vote, the motion was declared LOST and it was

 

Resolved:  That the above motion be not approved.

 

(iii)           Pupil Premiums (proposed by Cllr Runciman)

 

“Council notes:

 

·        the Pupil Premium is an additional allowance to support certain groups of school-aged children and young people at risk of not achieving their potential;

·        this year’s allocation of £4,884,000 means that primary and secondary schools in York have received over £12.6 million since the Pupil Premium was introduced in 2011;

 

·        children entitled to free school meals are eligible for Pupil Premium of £1,300 a year for primary pupils and £935 a year for secondary pupils;

·        whilst eligibility for free school meals is the main criteria for entitlement to Pupil Premium, other groups are also entitled to the Pupil Premium, including children in care, adopted children, children in hospital schools and service personnel children.

·        Tim Farron MP, Liberal Democrat Party President, along with groups such as the Carers Trust has called for this eligibility to be extended to include young carers;

 

·        There are 113 young carers registered with the York Carers Centre; however, the number of young people undertaking caring roles in York is widely believed to be far higher;           

 

·        The Government is currently consulting on its plans to extend the Pupil Premium in April 2015 to include a new ‘Early Years Pupil Premium’ for three and four-year-olds alongside plans to move the statutory entitlement to early learning for disadvantaged two-year olds to a participation funding model; 

·        An Early Years Pupil Premium would pay early years providers up to an additional £300 for each of the estimated 359 children currently eligible in York, providing an additional £103,330 in funding every year.

 

This Council believes that including young carers as a category of recipient eligible to receive the Pupil Premium would enable schools and colleges to provide additional support to these young people in York.

 

Council further believes that introducing an Early Years Pupil Premium would help all children get the best start in life and tackle what the Sutton Trust has identified as a 19 month gap at the start of school between the most and least advantaged children.

 

This Council therefore resolves to ask:

·        The Chief Executive to write to the Secretary of State for Education, the Minister of State for Schools, and Dr. John Dunford OBE, the national Pupil Premium Champion, noting the contents of this motion and asking the Government to widen the eligibility for Pupil Premiums to include young carers;

·        The Chief Executive to respond to the current consultation on Early Years Pupil Premium and funding for two-year olds in support of the Government’s proposals and its plans for rolling–out the schemes.”

 

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

 

Resolved:  That the above motion be approved. ^2.

 

(iv)    Safe Homes for Vulnerable People (proposed by Cllr Looker)

 

“Council notes the good work carried out by a range of organisations in the city providing safe homes for vulnerable people. Some of these and the people they help are facing an uncertain future with changed funding arrangements, tighter benefit entitlement and no clear plans for the bulk transition of existing claims to Universal Credit. 

 

Council also believes that the absence of choice that can be exercised by tenants in deciding who the housing element of Universal Credit is paid to is a particular worry.

 

Council resolves to invite the Chief Executive, on its behalf, to write to the Minister for the Department for Works and Pensions expressing concern over the roll out of Universal Credit, the implementation of Personal Independence Payments (PIPs) and difficulties with the delays in the processing of Employment & Support Allowance (ESA) claims, all affecting people in very difficult circumstances, and to appeal to the Government to resolve these issues quickly.”

 

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

 

Resolved:  That the above motion be approved. ^3.