Agenda item
Questions to the Executive Leader and Executive Members received under Standing Order 10(c)
To deal with the following questions to the Executive Leader or other Executive Members, in accordance with Standing Order 10(a):
(i) To the Executive Member for Neighbourhood Services, from Cllr Hill:
“Can the Executive Member provide me with a figure for the number of bicycles crushed and disposed of as scrap metal or landfill in the city, in the period since the practice of allowing the public to recover materials from household waste sites was disallowed at the start of the Lib Dems' tenure as Council Executive?”
(ii) To the Executive Member for Neighbourhood Services, from Cllr Hill:
“Can the Executive Member provide me with a figure for the number of bikes that have been salvaged and reused, either by the Council, members of the public or by bicycle reuse organisations such as "Re-Cycle", during this period?”
(iii) To the Executive Member for Neighbourhood Services, from Cllr Potter:
“Would the Executive Member confirm how many times cameras have been deployed to investigate early presentation of refuse bins / bags and fly tipping, and how much the Council has paid for cameras and whether any useful evidence has been gathered that could lead to a prosecution?”
(iv) To the Executive Member for Neighbourhood Services, from Cllr Greenwood:
“Can the Executive Member comment on the current performance in removing graffiti and abandoned cars?”
(v) To the Executive Member for City Strategy, from Cllr Simpson-Laing:
“Will the Executive Member explain why there are continuing problems with reliability of the 'ftr' service and timing, given the concept was meant to overcome boarding delays, and can she confirm whether an additional bus has been added into the 'ftr' service schedules?”
(vi) To the Executive Member for City Strategy, from Cllr Simpson-Laing:
“Can the Executive Member confirm how many existing residential streets have been adopted since 2003, and how many have been requested for adoption by residents?”
(vii) To the Executive Member for City Strategy, from Cllr Moore:
“Would the Executive Member comment on the outcome of the tendering exercise for the current year highways maintenance contract?”
(viii) To the Executive Member for Resources, from Cllr Looker:
“Would the Executive Member explain when the need to alter the Barbican 106 agreement was identified, who was involved in making that decision and why there was a substantial delay in submitting the formal proposal to Planning?”
(ix) To the Executive Member for Leisure and Culture, from Cllr Evans:
“Can the Executive Member explain what kind and level of community use is being made of the three PFI school facilities now that they have opened, as was intended under the original proposals?”
(x) To the Executive Member for Adult Social Services, from Cllr Fraser:
“Will the Executive Member detail how many ‘Home Care’ packages are being offered this financial year compared with last?”
(xi) To the Executive Member for Adult Social Services, from Cllr Livesley:
“When does the Executive Member anticipate that Windsor House will be open?”
(xii) To the Executive Member for Children’s Services, from Cllr Bradley:
“Would the Executive Member inform Council of the result of the Annual Performance Assessment and highlight some of the comments it contains?”
(xiii) To the Executive Member for Social Inclusion and Youth, from Cllr Aspden:
“Will the Executive Member confirm the uptake of School’s Out over the past few years?”
(xiv) To the Executive Member for Housing, from Cllr Hyman:
“Can the Executive Member confirm how many tenants have benefited from Choice Based Lettings?”
(xv) To the Executive Member for Corporate Services, from Cllr Moore:
“Could the Executive Member confirm how current Council Tax collection rates compare with previous years?”
Minutes:
In accordance with Standing Order 10(c)(1), the following questions were put and responses given:
(i) From Cllr Hill to the Executive Member for Neighbourhood Services:
“Can the Executive Member provide me with a figure for the number of bicycles crushed and disposed of as scrap metal or landfill in the City, in the period since the practice of allowing the public to recover materials from household waste sites was disallowed at the start of the Lib Dems’ tenure as Council Executive?”
The Executive Member replied:
“Practices at the Household Waste recycling centres were refined by this administration in order to improve health and safety operations on sites, dramatically boost the proportion of waste being diverted from landfill, and to improve the assistance being offered to members of the public taking waste to the sites. As the question includes the instances where bicycles are disposed of outside the recycling and waste systems operated by the council I cannot give him a figure for the total number of bicycles crushed or disposed of as scrap metal or landfill in the city, but I can assure him that every effort is made to keep bicycles out of landfill when they come to our Household Waste Recycling Centres.”
The Executive Member then responded to a supplementary question relating to the number of bicycles disposed of as scrap metal or landfill since 2003.
(ii) From Cllr Hill to the Executive Member for Neighbourhood Services:
“Can the Executive Member provide me with a figure for the number of bikes that have been salvaged and re-used, either by the Council or by bicycle re-use organizations such as ‘Re-Cycle’, during this period?”
The Executive Member replied:
“From the first two months when Bike-Rescue were operational with a full business plan, and premises, 150 bikes had been segregated from waste at Hazel Court as reported to City of York Council and Yorwaste on 31st October 2006. We are very keen to see this re-use system work, and are working closely with Bike-rescue.
The question also would include the instances where bicycles are disposed of outside the recycling and waste systems operated by the council. I cannot therefore give a figure for the total number of bicycles salvaged and reused by the public during this period, but I hope that the figure for the council recycling service will suffice.”
The Executive Member then responded to supplementary questions regarding the separation of waste and the viability of re-use credits.
(iii) From Cllr Potter to the Executive Member for Neighbourhood Services:
“Would the Executive Member confirm how many times cameras have been deployed to investigate early presentation of refuse bins / bags and fly tipping, and how much the Council has paid for cameras and whether any useful evidence has been gathered that could lead to a prosecution?”
The Executive Member replied:
“Neighbourhood Services officers have used a number of cameras to record evidence which they deploy on a daily basis. The council paid £5k towards the cost of a mobile recording CCTV camera, and the 6 digital cameras used by Street Environment Officers, who deal with enforcement cost £100 each. Yes, evidence has been gathered that could lead to a prosecution.”
The Executive Member then responded to supplementary questions regarding the number of occasions on which the CCTV camera had been used for court evidence and how often it had led to successful prosecutions.
(iv) From Cllr Greenwood to the Executive Member for Neighbourhood Services:
“Can the Executive Member comment on the current performance in removing graffiti and abandoned cars?”
The Executive Member replied:
“We are now removing obscene graffiti on council land within 24 hours, and non-obscene graffiti on council land within an average of four days. 100% of abandoned cars were investigated within 24 hours of being reported in Quarter 2 of this year, and 95% were removed within 24 hours of being legally entitled to doe so.”
(v) From Cllr Simpson-Laing to the Executive Member for City Strategy:
“Will the Executive Member explain why there are continuing problems with reliability of the ‘ftr’ service and timing, given the concept was meant to overcome boarding delays, and can she confirm whether an additional bus has been added into the ‘ftr’ service schedules?”
The Executive Member replied:
“The Leader of the Council met with Directors from First Group and First York on 20th September. I understand that at that meeting First indicated that a number of vehicle reliability issues had been identified and that a programme of modifications were ongoing involving engineers from both Volvo and Wrights. It is expected that these modifications to all the vehicles will take 2 months to complete. One of the Leeds FTRs is in use in York to maintain fleet numbers.
In addition customer hosts have been recruited and their introduction is already having an effect on reducing boarding times and improving reliability.
An additional ftr has been in place for over 3 months now bringing the fleet number up to 11 in service. There is still a spare vehicle which is used when difficulties arise giving a total fleet of 12.”
The Executive Member then responded to supplementary questions in relation to bus running times and suggested modifications to the ftr ticket machines.
(vi) From Cllr Simpson-Laing to the Executive Member for City Strategy:
“Can the Executive Member confirm have many existing city streets have been adopted since 2003, and how many have been requested for adoption by residents?”
The Executive Member replied:
“Members will no doubt be aware that prior to 2003 there was no policy or budget funding to respond to the requests from residents who wished to have their roads adopted. We have therefore had to spend time in developing a policy and have only recently been in a position to write to residents seeking their views on a way forward.
Officers have written to residents in 12 roads outlining the policy and asking for expressions of interest. The replies are currently being evaluated as the closing date has not yet been reached.”
(vii) From Cllr Moore to the Executive Member for City Strategy:
“Would the Executive Member comment on the outcome of the tendering exercise for the current year highways maintenance contract?”
The Executive Member replied:
“The existing contract arrangements with Tarmac for the resurfacing and reconstruction of carriageways and footways had previously been extended up to 31 March 2006. It was not appropriate to continue this extension and it was suspected that perhaps better rates could be obtained by testing the market. This work was therefore procured during the first half of 2006/07. The procurement allows for a contract to be in place up to 2010, to coincide with the commencement of a highway maintenance PFI contract, should the Council be successful with its Expression of Interest.
The tender process attracted considerable interest and pricing was very competitive and Tarmac, the existing provider up to the start of this financial year, has been awarded the term contract on a fixed price basis for the first 2 years. The contract will be delivered by a quality contractor, with certainty of price and savings compared to previous scheme costs. Indeed, members will not doubt have already noted the carriageway works taking place across the City and information on all the projected works is now available on the website.
The significant savings achieved through the new contract come after the completion of the reserve schemes of Tranby Ave and Walmer Carr. Improved working arrangements between City Strategy and Neighbourhood Services has also achieved further savings on the conventional footway resurfacing programme. These savings will allow extra highway maintenance works to be carried out. Suggestions include improvements to the well used Esplanade cycle/footway; repair and replacement of city centre signs; road marking programme and some extra resurfacing work and Members will be able to see the details in the City Strategy EMAP papers.”
(viii) From Cllr Evans (Cllr Horton in the absence of Cllr Evans) to the Executive Member for Leisure & Culture:
“Can the Executive Member explain what kind and level of community use is being made of the three PFI school facilities now that they have opened, as was intended under the original proposals?”
The Executive Member replied:
“This Question should, of course, have been directed to Cllr Runciman who has responsibility for PFI projects. Nevertheless the following represents the answer to the Question.
Overview
The PFI contract provides buildings and facilities management. Within the contract, there are clear requirements for facilities to be open at various times, fully serviced and working, to allow the LA to provide a range of services from them. The Council and schools also have access to additional hours within the contract - these are detailed below.
Below is a list of opening requirements for the main user groups at each of the 3 PFI sites.
Sewell Education has established effective and positive relationships with schools, the Local Authority and other partners during the first full year of the contract. The company is open to new ideas and suggestions for using buildings and has proved to be realistic, responsive and reasonable in dealings with the Council.
St Barnabas
St Barnabas School
Open 7.30am - 6.30pm, 195 days per year. 140 additional hours per annum are also available on request for the use of any school-related activity, for example, parents’ evenings, staff meetings, school play, etc.
100 additional hours outside of these hours are available for school related activities.
Nursery
Open 7.30am - 7.30pm, 52 weeks (ex. Bank Hols).
Holiday Club
During school holidays (ex. Bank Hols), 7.30am - 6.30pm.
Operating: After School Club (3.00pm - 6.00pm (this is part of usual school day, is run by the school and is considered part of the school’s usual running), as well as multiple clubs (allotment club, art club) these are normally 40 minutes to an hour after school.
St Oswald’s
St Oswald’s School
Open 7.30am - 6.30pm, 195 days per year. 140 additional hours per annum are also available on request for the use of any school-related activity, for example, parents’ evenings, staff meetings, and a dance workshop run by a non-school group.
Under extended schools, the school is promoting its breakfast club (8.00-school start), the after school club (3.30pm - 6.30pm), as well as various other ‘mini’ after school clubs run by a teacher for approx. half an hour after school.
100 additional hours per annum outside of these hours are available for school related activities.
Nursery
Open 7.30am - 7.30pm, 52 weeks (ex. Bank Hols).
Library
Contractually 9.5 hours a week, 52 weeks (Ex. Bank Hols). 100 additional hours per annum, though the Library Service has since bought extra hours for opening on Saturdays, by a separate agreement.
Hob Moor Childrens Centre
Hob Moor Primary School
Open 7.30am - 6.30pm, 195 days per year. 140 additional hours per annum are also available on request for the use of any school-related activity, for example, parents’ evenings, staff meetings, school-led workshops etc.
Hob Moor Oaks
Open 7.30am - 6.30pm, 195 days per year. 140 additional hours per annum are also available on request for the use of any school-related activity, for example, parents’ evenings, staff meetings, school-led workshops etc.
Nursery
Open 7.30am - 7.30pm, 52 weeks (Ex. Bank Hols). 100 additional hours per annum, for nursery-led events, such as parents’ evening etc.
SureStart
Open 8.00am - 6.00pm, 52 weeks (Ex. Bank Hols). 100 additional hours per annum.
Family Centre
Open 8.00am - 6.00pm, 52 weeks (Ex. Bank Hols). 100 additional hours per annum.
Holiday Club
During school holidays (ex. Bank Hols), 7.30am - 6.30pm.
Informal Games Area
This will be available for general outdoor play.
General
The Council also has up to 50 hours per annum available outside the core hours (over and above the additional hours available for school related or school sponsored activity) at each of the 3 sites.”
In relation to supplementary questions on activities specifically in the community and timings of activities, the Executive Member replied that the question would need to be put to the appropriate Executive Member.
(ix) From Cllr Fraser to the Executive Member for Adult Social Services:
“Will the Executive Member detail how many ‘Home Care’ packages are being offered this financial year compared with last?”
The Executive Member replied:
“There is no requirement on the Council to collate the information requested therefore it is not available.”
(x) From Cllr Livesley to the Executive Member for Adult Social Services:
“When does the Executive Member anticipate that Windsor House will be open?”
The Executive Member replied:
“Recruitment is currently underway and it is expected that the second facility of its kind will be open once registration from CSCI is received which should be within the next few weeks. Once I have an exact date Members will be informed.”
(xi) From Cllr Looker to the Executive Member for Corporate Services:
Would the Executive Member explain when the need to alter the Barbican 106 agreement was identified, who was involved in making that decision and why there was a substantial delay in submitting the formal proposal to Planning?”
The Executive Member replied:
“Members will recall that consent for the original Barbican scheme was granted on 22nd April 2004. The joint applicants were City Of York Council and Barbican Venture. The consent required Barbican Venture to enter into a S106 agreement which included the construction of a new swimming pool on the site of Kent Street coach park. The S106 agreement was drafted but not signed because of the uncertainty introduced by the Save Our Barbican campaign.
There then followed 2 years of protracted delay, while Save Our Barbican legally challenged the scheme. This in turn has led directly to a reduction in the achievable capital receipt of £2,168,000 and the loss of the swimming pool at Kent Street. This is equivalent to £ 11.85 for every man, woman and child resident in the City of York.
On 7th February 2006, the Executive adopted a new Leisure Facilities Strategy. The new strategy withdrew the provision of the pool on the Kent Street site and authorised the pursuit of a partnership approach with the University to provide an 8 lane, 25metre county standard pool.
In mid May 2006 planning officers revisited the existing planning consent and the draft S106 agreement. They realised that there might be a problem with the planning consent since it no longer matched the proposed scheme.
Discussion between planning and property officers ensued and an opinion was sought from Counsel. In early August 2006, it was decided that the only correct course of action would be to seek a revised planning consent for the current scheme and this was granted on 28th September 2006.
Although deciding on the correct course of action took some time I consider that it was more important to get the right decision rather than a hasty one. I do not accept that this approach amounted to substantial delay and it has had no impact on the progress of the land sale.”
The Executive Member then responded to a supplementary question regarding the handling of the issues involved between February and May 2004.
(xii) From Cllr Moore to the Executive Member for Corporate Services:
“Could the Executive Member confirm how current Council Tax collection rates compare with previous years?”
The Executive Member replied:
“In-year collection of Council Tax has improved every year since the disastrous fall of 4% at end of the year 2003/04. That fall was the direct result of the very difficult commissioning of the SX3 system 1 year late. That was entirely due to the last Labour administration's total failure to provide effective project management. At October 31st 2006, compared to the same date in 2005, the collection rate was 1.1% up at 65.8% and the year end forecast for 2006/07 is 1% up compared with last year; a forecast out-turn of 97.1%. I expect to see some further improvement to the in-year collection over the following years.”
(xiii) From Cllr Hyman to the Executive Member for Housing Services:
“Can the Executive Member confirm how many tenants have benefited from Choice Based Lettings?”
The Executive Member replied:
“The Choice based letting scheme was introduced as part of the new allocations policy that went live at the beginning of May 2006. The initiative means that certain properties where there is a limited demand are taken out of the normal allocations process which is based purely on housing need. These properties are advertised in the press, internet, council offices and copies are circulated to various partner agencies. Customers who are on the councils housing register are invited to put in a bid for the property and the officers will then evaluate the bid on the basis of need and offer the property.
Since its launch there have been 35 homes let this way and it has attracted a lot of interest from customers and we have seen more people sign up for registration which suggests it is popular with the public. It does mean that some people who would normally be a low priority in terms of rehousing have a realistic chance of getting a council home. When properties are available they are advertised on the Tuesday and the evaluation is done a week later. Customers must be registered on the housing register to be eligible for the scheme. The scheme means that a council home is a realistic option for more of the public.”
In response to a supplementary question regarding the proportion of homes let during that period represented by the 35 referred to, the Executive Member informed Council that she would provide a written response in accordance with constitutional requirements.
(xiv) From Cllr Aspden to the Executive Member for Social Inclusion & Youth (in his absence, to Councillor Orrell):
“Will the Executive Member confirm the uptake of School’s Out over the past few years?”
The Executive Member replied on behalf of the Executive Member for Social Inclusion & Youth (in his absence) :
“The total number of participants in the School's Out holiday activities are as follows: for 2003, 23690; for 2004, 35273; for 2005, 43547; for 2006, 52777. It is worth noting that the 2006 figure does not include a final total for the October half term programme, nor, for obvious reasons, the Christmas holiday activities. Overall thanks to additional investment made by the Lib Dem administration and the determination, hard work and commitment of Council officers, even before the final totals for October 2006 and Christmas 2006 have been included, the total number of participants has grown by nearly 30,000 a year since 2003.”
(xv) From Cllr Bradley to the Executive Member for Children’s Services:
“Would the Executive Member inform Council of the result of the Annual Performance Assessment and highlight some of the comments it contains?”
“I am pleased to report that the result of the 2006 Annual Performance Assessment by Ofsted and CSCI of Services for Children and Young People was very positive. The APA letter said that overall the City of York delivers outstanding outcomes for children and young people.
For our contribution to maintaining and improving outcomes for children and young people we were awarded a Grade 4, which means that we have a service that delivers well above minimum requirements and is regarded as excellent. Our grade for children’s social care was 3, which is good. For our capacity to improve the services we provide we also received a grade 4. The report commented that we demonstrated the experience and determination to succeed and has excellent capacity to improve further within the resources that are available. That means in terms of star rating we are a three star authority – the highest possible category.
Comments made by the inspectors highlighted the successful integration of the new directorate and the high quality of leadership and management that has enabled all areas to improve. They recognised our tight financial constraints but stated that we give excellent value for money. With a clear plan and good partnerships, they report that limited resources are targeted effectively and reinvested wisely. They noted that standards in schools continue to rise and remain above average and that we make a good contribution to assuring the safety and welfare of children as well as their health.”
It was pleasing to note that the inspectors found that we make excellent provision for encouraging children and young people to have real say in the decisions that affect their lives, with strength in targeting consultations with groups of young people.
I would like to pay tribute to all the officers in the directorate and the staff in schools who have enabled this excellent result to be achieved. Despite the continuing challenging budget pressures that the council has, which were noted several times by the inspectors in their report, it is an outstanding result for an excellent service.”
In response to a supplementary question regarding the Council’s national ranking position, the Executive Member replied that City of York Council was within the top 10% in the country.