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	9 September 2014	Minute 34: Capital Programme Monitor One 2014/15   Minute 35: Community Stadium and Leisure Facilities Update   Minute 36: Financial Close for the Long Term Waste Management Service Contract http://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=8328&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 sixteen questions on the written report, submitted by Members in accordance with Standing Orders. The first nine 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

“Does the leader share my view that zero hours contracts are a problem when people are restricted to one employer and welcome the Prime Minister clamping down on that, or does he oppose all zero hours contracts per se?”

The Leader replied:

Yes,  I welcome any action against exclusivity clauses in zero hour contracts. I think there is at times a place for zero hour contracts, but they should not be exploited by some employers.

(ii)    From Cllr Aspden

“What specific positive steps will the Leader be taking to address concerns about the growth in part time work?”

The Leader replied:

I will continue to help existing businesses to grow, support new start up employers and attract businesses to York. This will help increase the employment market for full-time work.

(iii)   From Cllr Barton

 

“In future could the Council Leader allocate more of his report to the addressing of local front line issues rather than national and local economic statistics unlikely to be considered by residents in York as burning issues. In short, could we have ‘more meat on the bone in future please?’”

 

The Leader replied:

I focus on the big issues and those pertaining to my portfolio, primarily economic development. Details on front line service performance is reported to both the cabinet and to scrutiny committees. That is not what the leader's report is for.

 

(iv)   From Cllr Steward

 

“With the leader’s report objecting to two further call-ins as inappropriate in his eyes can he detail any call-ins this term he has not felt were wrong to be done or does he genuinely believe no decision of his administration has been worth further scrutiny?”

 

 The Leader replied:

It is up to members of scrutiny to decide where scrutiny is required. Sometimes I feel this misses the point, for example the recent waste scrutiny report. I believe all too often in this council, including under Labour, the call-in process has been abused to delay decision making or to generate headlines over decisions. When I became leader of the opposition I tried to ensure this happened less frequently.

 

(v)    From Cllr Orrell

 

“Does the Leader think it is unreasonable to request consultation with local residents on the closure of Waterworld?”

 

The Leader replied:

I do not think it is unreasonable to request consultation on any matter. Whether that consultation proceeds or in what form is another matter.

 

(vi)   From Cllr Reid

 

“Could the Leader breakdown those affected by the council's living wage policy by department?”

 

The Leader replied:

The table below represents the number of employees receiving the Living Wage (£7.65 since April 2014).

 

Directorate	Recipients
Children’s Services, Education & Skills	6
City & Environmental Services	3
Communities & Neighbourhoods	15
Customer & Business Support Services	165
Health & Wellbeing	32
Office of the Chief Executive	0
Directorates Total	221
Schools	584
TOTAL	805

 

 (vii)From Cllr Aspden

 

“As five wards account for 55.45% of JSA claimants, what will the Council be doing to work towards further reducing those needing to claim?”

The Leader replied:

We have a strong record in this council of influencing one of the best performing reductions in JSA claimants in the country. When you left office it was 2.6% (3,440 people) and now it stands at 1.1%, (1,441) a reduction of some 2000 people.  We will continue on York's path to prosperity through policies of jobs and growth which will help reduce JSA claimants across the city.

 

(viii)From Cllr Steward

 

“Given criticisms of the lack of openness on the Community Stadium can the leader give residents the bottom line year on year revenue effect (taking account of the capital borrowing and ongoing profit/subsidy) of having the stadium as proposed?”

 

The Leader replied:

 

The total amount of Council borrowing would be £8m, which would result in revenue costs of approximately £700k per annum. The revenue costs of operating the Stadium and Leisure facilities are anticipated to be within the current revenue budget of £323k per annum. The Councils £8m investment will realise £47m of investment to the city that will deliver high quality leisure, health and community facilities, deliver significant additional economic benefits, and realise an increased level of business rates.

 

The proposals show that a number of new businesses will be located at the Stadium, Hub and Development that will give rise to new business rates of which the Council will retain the 25p share of each business rate pound raised.

 

This retained amount will be new income for the Council that can be used to help offset the cost of borrowing used in bringing this development forward.  It is estimated that this will be in the region of £400k per year.

 

(ix)   From Cllr Cuthbertson

 

“Does the Leader think it is unreasonable for elected councillors to want further details about a business case involving a further £4million of public spending?”

 

The Leader replied:

I think it is unnecessary to ask for further details on the community stadium project when the details are already available to councillors. I also think councillors of all parties need to recognise the correct process when undergoing a procurement process.

 

All Members have been offered a detailed briefing to help understand the business case and some Members have chosen to accept.

 

(x)    From Cllr Aspden

 

“Whilst welcoming the Tour de Yorkshire, could the Leader outline any potential costs for City of York Council?”

 

Reply:

 

Unfortunately not at this stage, however I know officers are working through the detail of what the costs would be should the race come to York, and that these will be discussed in public when they are available.

 

(xi)   From Cllr Steward

 

“Can the leader give details of areas of the city or residents’ bodies or community groups who agree with him that the latest local plan looks like one that ‘has taken into account public feedback’?”

 

Reply:

 

I think if you look at the draft plan in its current form it is obvious that changes have been made based on the feedback received. This is why the latest iteration of the draft plan is different from its previous versions.

 

I accept that some groups may remain unhappy with the plan for various reasons, but it has changed in a way that I think many of those groups would welcome.

 

(xii)  From Cllr Aspden

“Does the Leader think it is unreasonable to request a commitment, on behalf of swimming groups and users, to keep Yearsley Pool open?”

 

Reply:

I think it is hard to give any assurances on any public services with the current funding reductions from the Conservative Liberal Democrat Government - even if this is something I would like to support.

 

(xiii)From Cllr Steward

 

“What examples can the leader give of when opposition councillors have influenced the planning for the crucial long-term issues of the Community Stadium and Local Plan?”

 

 

Reply:

The cross-party Local Plan Working Group seems the obvious example on the Local Plan, and the Community Stadium Advisory Group on the planning for the stadium before the council went to Labour control in 2011.

 

The input of Members on the LPWG has led to amendments and consideration of those amendments by officers and ultimately Cabinet in recommending the final draft Plan for public consultation.

 

(xiv)From Cllr Orrell

 

“Following the massive public opposition to the use of green belt sites for housing development in the 2013 Draft Local Plan consultation, how many green belt sites have been withdrawn from the subsequent draft plan proposals and how many new green belt sites have been added?”

 

Reply:

 

I think you mean draft green belt, as York has never defined the inner boundaries of the green belt. The local plan seeks to achieve this through satisfying government tests for a credible local plan - including ensuring adequate provision for homes. This will protect green land against uncontrolled development from the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

The following sites that are within the general extent of the draft green belt (as defined in RSS) have been deleted as housing allocations since the Preferred Options Draft Plan:

 

ST6 Land East of Grimston Bar (154 dwellings) – deleted as housing allocation and moved to safeguarded land

ST10 Land at Moor Lane, Woodthorpe (511 dwellings) – deleted as housing allocation and moved to safeguarded land

 

The following sites that are within the general extent of the green belt (as defined in RSS)  have been added as housing allocations since the Preferred Options Draft Plan:

 

H46 Land North of Willow Bank and East of Haxby Road (118 dwellings)

H49 Station Yard, Wheldrake (109 dwellings)

H50 Land at Malton Road (70 dwellings)

ST29 Land at Boroughbridge Road (135 dwellings)

ST30 land North of Stockton Lane (165 dwellings)

 

In addition there are a number of sites where estimated housing numbers have been amended due to further masterplanning work which has been undertaken since Preferred Options.

 

I think some will take exception to some people arguing against homes in draft green belt whilst living in homes themselves that were built not too long ago on draft green belt. I understand you live in such a property.

 

 (xv)From Steward

 

“Given the Preferred Options to Final Draft moves from a less than 10% reduction of just under 1,100 houses to just under 1,000 does the leader share my view it is misleading to talk about a move from 22,000 to 17,000 which is a more than 20% reduction?”

 

Reply:

 

I’m afraid that’s something of a simplification of the position.

 

The Preferred Options Draft Local Plan included a housing demand target of 1,090 dwellings per annum over the Local Plan period from 1^st October 2012 to 2030 (17.5 years). This equates to 19,075 dwellings in total. In addition a 15% buffer was included across the full Plan period to provide flexibility in the supply and to deal with persistent under-delivery in previous years. This 15% buffer equates to an additional 2,861 dwellings over the Plan period. In total therefore the Preferred Options Draft included a housing target of 21,936 dwellings.

 

The Publication Plan supplies enough land allocations (in addition to existing planning commitments) to provide for the construction of 1,170 homes per annum in years 1-6 of the Plan (7,020 dwellings in total) and 996 homes per annum for years 7-16 of the Plan (9,960 dwellings). This gives a total housing requirement for the Plan period (16 years) of 16,980 dwellings, a significant reduction of the amount highlighted in your question.

 

(xvi)From Cllr Steward

 

“When the leader says housing demand ‘cannot be addressed through brownfield developments alone’ can he detail any councillor currently saying it can and evidence that claim?”

 

Reply:

 

The 575 homes stance a year supported by the Liberal Democrats will not lead to a plan that will satisfy Government requirements. Liberal Democrats oppose all draft green belt development. Since voting down 800 homes a year in June 2011, the Conservatives now support 800 homes a year. This level would require more land than the previous draft local development framework. Almost certainly the Whinthorpe proposals would be required at the very least. Conservatives have so far not supported any new land site. In fact Conservatives have opposed all such development proposals. Those arguing to protect the draft green belt in its entirety are by definition saying development should only occur on brownfield land. Below are some examples of councillors making the point I raised in my report.

 

“and concentrate on building townships in the city (that’s brownfield sites to you and me)”.

Councillor George Barton, Conservative Group Deputy Leader, 19th July 2014, The Press

 

"This is green belt land and development is totally inappropriate."

Councillor Nigel Ayre, Liberal Democrat, 11th April 2014, The Press

 

"I will also step up our campaign to save York’s Green Belt."

Councillor Keith Aspden, Liberal Democrat, 13th May 2013, The Press

 

“In that poll, 83 per cent of parishioners voted against further greenfield land development in this area, and I would question why the council needs to be expanding a small, historic city like York."

Councillor Mark Warters, Independent, 15th April 2013, The Press

 

However, I give credit to Councillor Paul Firth who gives an accurate position on number of homes.

 

"There aren’t enough available brownfield sites in the city to accommodate such high house-building numbers”.

Councillor Paul Firth, Liberal Democrat, 25th April 2011

 

B       Cabinet Recommendations

 

Capital Programme – Monitor One 2014/15

 

Cllr Alexander moved, and Cllr Simpson-Laing seconded the following recommendation contained in Minute 34 of the Cabinet meeting held on 9 September 2014:

 

Recommended: That Council agree to:

 

(i)    The adjustments in the Capital programme of a decrease of £6.912m in 2014/15 as detailed in the report and contained in Annex A.

(ii)    The use of £75k Contingency for works in relation to the War Memorial sites as set out at paragraph 16 of the report.

 

Reason:   To enable the effective management and monitoring of the Council’s capital programme

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 – Monitor One be approved.^1.

 

Community Stadium and Leisure Facilities

 

Cllr Alexander moved, and Cllr Simpson-Laing seconded the following recommendations contained in Minute 35 of the Cabinet meeting held on 9 September 2014:

         

Recommended: That Council approve £4m Prudential Borrowing  for the capital investment in the replacement leisure facilities (as shown in the tables at paragraph 22 of the report).  The associated revenue costs of the borrowing will be c£360k per annum and will be shown as growth in the treasury management budget from 2016/17.

 

Reason:      To update Members on the procurement of the New Stadium Leisure Complex and in order to progress the scheme to provide a landmark leisure destination for the City.

 

Cllr Aspden then moved, and Cllr Watson seconded, an amendment to the above motion, as follows:

 

Addition of the following additional resolution:

 "The Council guarantees not to close Yearsley Pool during the next Council (2015-2020). As such, Council requests a detailed report for submission to Cabinet which examines ways to reduce any subsidy whilst guaranteeing not to close Yearsley Pool. "

 

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

 

The original motion was then put to the vote, and declared CARRIED and it was

 

Resolved:                     That the above recommendation in respect of the prudential borrowing for the Community Stadium and Leisure facilities be approved. ^2.

 

Long Term Waste Management Contract

 

Cllr Alexander moved, and Cllr Simpson-Laing seconded the following recommendations contained in Minute 36 of the Cabinet meeting held on 9 September 2014:

         

Recommended: That Council be asked to confirm:

(i)           The City Council is supportive of the County Councils recommendation to proceed to Financial Close for the Long Term Waste Treatment Service contract given the revised environmental and financial assessments carried out and detailed in this report given the positive long term benefits; subject to the final terms within the Value for Money Envelope set out at paragraph 146 of the report. ^3.

 

(ii)          That delegated authority be given to the Director of Customer and Business Support Services (acting in consultation with the Director of City and Environmental Services and the Assistant Director (Governance & ICT) to amend the Joint Waste Management Agreement and to agree any other documents necessary to give effect to this project. ^4.

(iii)        That the Director of Customer andBusiness Support Services, is authorised to issue the certificates under the Local Government (Contracts) Act 1997 to confirm the City Council’s powers to enter into the contracts referred to above;

 

(iv)        That an indemnity be given by the City Council to the Director of Customer andBusiness Support Services, against any claim that may arise out of or in connection with the issue of the certificates under the Local Government (Contracts) Act 1997.

 

(v)         That all the Executive Decisions recommended above will not be implemented unless and until Full City Council agrees to the recommendation to proceed to Financial Close and Financial Close can be delivered within the Value for Money Envelope set out at paragraph 146 of the report.^.

 

Reason:     In order for Full Council to determine whether to enter into a long term waste management contract.

 

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

 

Resolved:                     That the above recommendations in respect of the long term waste management contract be approved.