Agenda item

To receive and consider a written report from the Leader on the work of the Cabinet (to follow), and the Cabinet recommendations for approval, as set out below:

 

Meeting	Date	Recommendations
Cabinet                       Cabinet	16 December 2014                     3 March 2015	Minute 72: Capital Programme - Monitor Two 2014/15   Minute 74: The Replacement of Ordnance Lane Homeless Hostel http://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=8618&Ver=4                Minute 123: Yorwaste Limited & Implementation of the Teckal Exemption           http://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=8334&Ver=4

 

A written report was received from the Cabinet Leader, Cllr Daf Williams, on the work of the Cabinet.

 

A       Questions

 

Notice had been received of twenty two questions on the written report, submitted by Members in accordance with Standing Orders. The first seven questions were put and answered as follows and Cllr Williams undertook to provide Members with written answers to the remaining questions:

 

(i)        From Cllr Steward

 

“Do you accept that the reason the Conservative Group initiated the Local Government Association’s review of City of York Council’s political culture was not because there was an objection to the ‘Strong Leader’ model of cabinet government, but included because the Labour administration and in particular certain members of the Labour cabinet operated in a deliberately opaque and punitively aggressive manner towards opposition councillors and officers when they did not agree with the administration’s policies?”

 

The Leader replied:

“I believe Cllr Steward to be an honourable man so if he says those were the motivations for the Conservative Group I entirely accept him at his word. However, that does not mean that I agree with the Conservatives perception about the conduct of the Labour Cabinet, which is a picture I do not recognise at all.”

 

(ii)    From Cllr Waller

 

“Regarding enforcement, residents have asked for information on the locations checked by the camera car such as schools. Why is the Council unable to provide this information?”

 

The Leader replied:

“Councillor Waller needs to do his research a little better. The Council is able and has provided the information which it took me all of three minutes to find on the Council’s website when researching the answer to this question. For schools which Cllr Waller specifically mentions, the information can be found at:

 

http://www.york.gov.uk/directory/5/primary_schools”

 

(iii)   From Cllr Warters

 

“The Leader refers to a new residential care home in the community hub in Burnholme, I will ask the same question I have asked numerous times at Cabinet without a satisfactory answer. Will the Leader rule out any development on the sports pitches and green field elements of the Burnholme school site and if not why not?”

 

The Leader replied:

“Cllr Warters certainly should win the Lord Mayor’s Special Star Prize for persistence. Whether he would win the prize for effectiveness is rather more debatable.

 

I can only repeat what I have said before. There are no plans to build on the playing fields at the Burnholme site and whatever happens there the total provision for playing field space will remain at least as much, if not more. It is possible that this could be reconfigured to allow the space to work better, but the total playing field space on that site will not be reduced.”

 

(iv)   From Cllr Barton

 

“Can the Leader explain why, given his proclaimed desire to “protect the Greenbelt”, every time a Travellers Site is proposed (and subsequently abandoned in the face of public opposition) in York South, it always seems to be on a Greenbelt site?”

 

The Leader replied:

“It is a legal requirement to provide space for traveler accommodation. The specific allocation of those sites within the Local Plan is based on professional guidance from our planning and housing officers.”

 

(v)     From Cllr Ayre

 

“Could the Cabinet Leader give an example of when Cllr Steward has made a “very positive” contribution to Cabinet proceedings?”

 

The Leader replied:

“Cllr Steward has made a positive contribution to every Cabinet meeting since he has been sitting at the table. I re-iterate that it is a great shame that the Liberal Democrats have chosen not to take part in proceedings and so they have intentionally denied themselves a voice on the key decision making body of this authority. The electorate may wish to reflect on this when they make their choice on May 7^th.”

 

(vi)   From Cllr Steward

 

“Regarding the West Yorkshire Combined Authority and the current direction of travel towards further devolution, would you support an elected mayor for the combined authority along the Manchester model?” 

 

The Leader replied:

“I believe in devolution and as such I believe it should be for the people of York and West Yorkshire to decide on the governance arrangements for the authority and that it should not be dictated to us by George Osborne and Nick Clegg.

 

(vii)    From Cllr Reid

 

“According to the officer report at the Cabinet Member’s Decision Session on 19^th March there was a “clear winner” in the bid to takeover Oliver House (providing 30 apartment retirement homes). Why was the Cabinet Leader therefore unable to come to a decision about the sale?

 

The Leader replied:

“I believed that given the large level of interest in the decision that it would benefit from the increased scrutiny of a decision by the full cabinet and not just one member.”

 

(viii)From Cllr Warters

 

“At the public inquiry into Derwenthorpe in 2006 City of York Council’s case against alternative sites mentioned the Lowfields school site as only being suitable for future development on the existing built footprint, is this still the case?”

 

Reply:

“The Lowfields school site is a draft allocation (H5) in the emerging Local Plan. The entire site (including the playing fields) was considered through the Local Plan Site Selection process after being submitted through the Call for Sites in 2012. The existing playing fields were excluded from the developable area as they were existing open space (part of criteria 2 of the local plan site selection methodology). The Preferred Options Local Plan consulted on during Summer 2013 allocated the remaining 2.24 ha site (including the built footprint of the school) for housing.

 

The whole site (including the existing playing fields) was re-considered as part of the Further Sites Consultation in Summer 2014. The technical officer assessment concluded that the loss of this openspace would have a detrimental impact on the urban landscape. The Publication Draft Local Plan which was approved by Cabinet in September 2014 continued to include the site as draft allocation H5 excluding the playing fields.

 

Following the motion agreed at Full Council in October 2014, the publication draft of the York Local Plan has not yet progressed through its statutory consultation pending further consideration of the Council’s housing requirements.  As such, there is a possibility that the position in relation to this site may change when the Local Plan recommences its passage to adoption after the elections.”

 

(ix)   From Cllr Barton

 

“As part of the Leaders ambition to “protect the Greenbelt”, does he plan to abandon yet the third proposed invasion into the York South Greenbelt, this time in Naburn, by a desperately unpopular Travellers Site?”

 

Reply:

“I am sensing a theme here. It is unfortunate in his last set of questions at Full Council that Cllr Barton is displaying this rather distasteful attitude towards the travelling community using words like ‘invasion’ in this context.

 

The detailed set of proposals on the allocations of accommodation sites within the Local Plan is still under consideration.”

 

(x)     From Cllr Cuthbertson

 

“Could the Cabinet Leader be honest with the public and accept it is not down to the current administration that crime figures have fallen and it was not down to the previous administration that they rose for a single year (after falling between 2003 and 2010). Please can he just congratulate the Police for their hard work and not continue to spin like his predecessor?”

 

Reply:

“I am happy to congratulate the police for their hard work. I am also happy to re-state that crime increased in York during the last year of Liberal Democrat control and crime has fallen sharply every year during the last four years of Labour control.”

 

(xi)   From Cllr Steward

 

“On housing, are you not in danger of confusing national trends with local needs when you speak of a “housing crisis” in York, and do you not agree that one can accept that York needs more new homes whilst differing on the number of new houses that York actually needs?”

 

Reply:

“This question neatly demonstrates the dividing between Labour and the Conservatives in York.

 

York has a housing crisis and the fact that Cllr Steward even asks if I am confusing that with a national trend just shows how staggeringly out of touch with the normal working people of York he is.

 

In 2013 the average income in this City was £24,990 per year. The average house price in the same year was £211,844 – eight and a half times the average income. Since then the problem has become worse and you will struggle to find a family sized home on the market for less than £190,000, around eight times average incomes. No mortgage lender will lend someone anything like eight times their gross annual income. In fact, to buy a house on the mean average value in York in 2013 you need to earn around £53,000 to get a typical mortgage at four times your annual income. This is well beyond the income of the typical working family in York.

 

Which means renting is the only option for working families in our city. But in 2013 the average monthly rent level was £738. Meaning that many people are paying 60% or more of their monthly income to meet the cost of their housing needs and far too many working families in York are forced to live in over-crowded houses.

 

We need more houses to fix this simple supply and demand issue. Labour in York get this. And for as a long as the Conservatives speak about housing as they do, they continue to demonstrate how out of touch with working families they have become.”

 

(xii)    From Cllr Aspden

 

“The Cabinet Leader claims that the ‘Leader and Cabinet Model’ enables councillors to be “held accountable” for decisions. Could he therefore detail which Cabinet Member has been held accountable for the botched Lendal Bridge trial or the £187,000 loss-making ‘Grand Departy’?”

 

Reply:

“Cabinet Members are accountable to the public in a way you will not see under the committee system. If Cllr Aspden disagrees with this, as he appears to from the Lib Dem motion, then he can put forward his alternative and we can all vote on it.”

 

(xiii)From Cllr Steward

 

“What are the “long cherished views” on which you and your group are willing to compromise in order to pass a Local Plan that is acceptable and fair to all residents?”

 

Reply:

“Let us have a sensible discussion based on you accepting the genuine need for more housing in York and we will see what compromises are to be had.”

 

(xiv)  From Cllr Orrell

 

In order to progress an “evidence-based” Local Plan, how will the Cabinet Leader revise the current proposals in light of the recent ruling on the Brecks Lane site and the recent government projections on household growth?

 

Reply:

“As Cabinet Leader I will not be revising anything.  Officers will take account of the projection figures and bring forward options for LPWG Members to consider. The ruling on Brecks Lane I don’t feel will have quite the impact on the Local Plan many Members believe it will.”

 

(xv)  From Cllr Steward

 

“Given all developments, not least the recent Department for Communities and Local Government revision to population projections and the Durham Planning Inspector’s view on their Local Plan, what current level of annual housing demand do you support?”

 

Reply:

“I think the question is about what level of supply rather than demand I support.  I wish demand were not so high but we live in a highly attractive city with a great quality of life for most residents.  That makes people want to live here.

 

The level of annual supply I support is one that is evidenced based and I look forward to officers presenting that evidence and proposals at the next Local Plan Working Group.”

 

(xvi)  From Cllr Waller

 

“Why is the Council preventing residents in Gale Farm Court from introducing CCTV to the entrances of the complex despite this being how they want to spend their allocation of the Estate Improvement Grant?”

 

Reply:

“For the second time in these questions Cllr Waller is factually wrong. The council isn’t preventing the installation of CCTV to the entrance to Gale Farm Court, we have been exploring the options available. The intention is to fit CCTV to the entrance of the scheme.”

 

(xvii)  From Cllr Reid

 

“If the Cabinet Leader wants the Council to become more transparent - and in the light of the Audit report on the allocation of the highways maintenance budget which criticised behind closed doors decision making - why was the highways programme for 2015/16 decided by a council officer using delegated powers and without the meeting agenda being publicised until after the decision had been taken?”

 

Reply:

“The Internal Audit Memorandum on this matter (referred to at the Audit & Governance on 25 March 2015) says that:

 

Members should be asked to approve the overall budget and principles to be used in allocating funding.  Officers should determine actual schemes to be undertaken in accordance with the budget and principles set by Members.

 

The budget for the highways programme was set by full Council at its last meeting on 26 February.  The principles for allocation are based on a full visual inspection of the highways network in accordance with the ‘Well Maintained Highways’ codes of practices which together with safety, location, usage, accidents, hierarchy, affordability and complaints form the scoring which underpins the scheme allocation. These have not changed in recent years and are well established.

 

Officers therefore allocated the capital programme in accordance with the advice of the Auditors.  The final decision was taken by the Director in accordance with her delegated powers under the Council’s Constitution on 18 March and the relevant report was published on 19 March at 12:51. There is no requirement for advance publication of the papers.”

 

(xviii)From Cllr Ayre

 

“Does the Cabinet Leader believe that the Labour Cabinet were being “honest with people” when in April 2013 they pushed on with public consultation on Local Plan proposals despite being told by council officers and consultants that evidence (on housing need) in the consultation was out-of-date and incorrect?”

 

Reply:

“I think Cllr Ayre, not for the first time, is seeking to spin this as something it quite obviously is not.  The consultation involved asking the public for their views on various options for annual housing targets, with the caveat that new household projections due out were likely to result in a reduction of those targets.  We did not at any point say the options were all based purely on household projections, historic shortfall was always a consideration as well.”

 

(xix)  From Cllr Aspden

 

“Does the Cabinet Leader agree with Ed Miliband that the New Homes Bonus should be scrapped?”

 

Reply:

“If it is replaced with a more sensible funding formula for local government then I’d have no problem with it. I hope Coun. Aspden will be seeking a better settlement for York residents following his party’s role in supporting a Tory led Government hell bent on ideological cuts to local councils.”

 

(xx)   From Cllr Waller

 

“When was the Cabinet Leader informed that Option 1, Lowfields Care Village, was being abandoned due to the financial model not working?”

 

Reply:

“I have been aware throughout the whole process – as indeed all councillors should have been, since it was made explicit in the report presented to cabinet on 4^th June 2013 – that there were risks associated with this project and that there was a chance the bidders might not be able to come back with a proposal that met all the criteria we had set out within the funding available.

 

It became conclusive that the council could not proceed with the procurement process when officers brought a report to cabinet in March, which clearly set out the affordability gap (of £1.5 million year on year) between the funding that was allocated to the project and the best offer on the table from any of the potential bidders.”

 

(xxi)  From Cllr Waller

 

After learning that the plan for Lowfields Care Village was being abandoned what action did the Cabinet Leader take as a consequence between then and the Cabinet report papers going public?

 

Reply:

“I took action to ensure that there was a comprehensive and strong plan for the future of older people’s accommodation in this City which is what the Council is proposing. I still await with eager anticipation to hear what plans the Liberal Democrats have for the future of older people’s accommodation.”

 

(xxii)  From Cllr Waller

 

“In terms of enforcement and as a precursor to the new ASB Hub could the Cabinet Leader say how many penalty notices have been given for parking around schools - broken down by school for the last six months?”

 

Reply:

“I am advised by officers that it will take some time to compile the data to answer this question. I will write to him with a full answer once the data is available.”

 

B       Cabinet Recommendations

 

Capital Programme – Monitor Two 2014/15

 

Cllr Williams moved, and Cllr Simpson-Laing seconded the following recommendation contained in Minute 72 of the Cabinet meeting held on 16 December 2014:

 

Recommended:           That Council agree the adjustments in the Capital programme of a decrease of £3.764m in 2014/15 as detailed in the report and contained in Annex A.

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 Two be approved.^1.

 

Replacement of Ordnance Lane Homeless Hostel

 

Cllr Williams moved, and Cllr Simpson-Laing seconded the following recommendation contained in Minute 74 of the Cabinet meeting held on16 December 2014:

         

Recommended:           That Council use £3.56m from the Housing Revenue Account Investment Fund to demolish the existing accommodation and rebuild the new hostel.  Any material changes will be reported to full Council through the capital monitoring process.

 

Reason:              To release funding from the HRA Investment Fund to finance the required new hostel accommodation.

 

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

 

Resolved:                     That the above recommendation in respect of funding for the replacement of the Ordnance Lane Homeless Hostel be approved.^2.

 

Yorwaste Limited and Implementation of the Teckal Exemption

 

Cllr Williams moved, and Cllr Simpson-Laing seconded the following recommendations contained in Minute 123 of the Cabinet meeting held on 3 March 2015:

         

Recommended:That Council be asked to confirm:

(i)      The City Council is supportive of the County Council’s recommendation to its Executive that the County Council takes the steps necessary to facilitate Yorwaste Limited’s obtaining Teckal compliant status.

 

(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:

-          to adopt new articles of association(as a shareholder of Yorwaste Limited)  to evidence the control condition;

-          enter into a Shareholders Agreement with Yorwaste Limited and NYCC to evidence the control condition;

-          enter into a non binding collaboration agreement with Yorwaste Limited and NYCC and other such documents as necessary;

-          take such steps and enter into such documents as necessary to approve the transfer of the shares of SJB Recycling Limited once satisfied that due diligence is complete and legal and financial advice has been provided identifying the most appropriate route;

-          take any ancillary steps necessary to meet the control condition or the economic dependence condition required to assist Yorwaste Limited in achieving Teckal compliant status; and

-          award future waste management to Yorwaste Limited without the need for a competitive procurement exercise if the tests required to make use of the Teckal exemption have been satisfied. 

Reason:     In order to facilitate Yorwaste Limited meeting the control condition and the economic dependence condition required to utilise the Teckal exemption thereby enabling the Council to award contracts for future waste management contracts to Yorwaste Limited without conducting a competitive procurement exercise.

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

 

Resolved:                      That the above recommendations to facilitate Yorwaste Limited obtaining Teckal compliant status be approved. ^3.