Local democracy during coronavirus

During coronavirus, we've made some changes to how we're running council meetings. See our coronavirus updates for more information on meetings and decisions.

Agenda item

Public Participation

At this point in the meeting members of the public who have registered to speak can do so.  The deadline for registering is 5.00pm on Wednesday 28 October 2015.  Members of the public can speak on agenda items or matters within the remit of the committee.

 

To register to speak please contact the Democracy Officer for the meeting, on the details at the foot of the agenda.

 

Filming, Recording or Webcasting Meetings

“Please note this meeting will be filmed and webcast and that includes any registered public speakers, who have given their permission.  This broadcast can be viewed at http://www.york.gov.uk/webcasts.

 

Residents are welcome to photograph, film or record Councillors and Officers at all meetings open to the press and public. This includes the use of social media reporting, i.e. tweeting.  Anyone wishing to film, record or take photos at any public meeting should contact the Democracy Officer (whose contact details are at the foot of this agenda) in advance of the meeting.

 

The Council’s protocol on Webcasting, Filming & Recording of Meetings ensures that these practices are carried out in a manner both respectful to the conduct of the meeting and all those present.  It can be viewed at http://www.york.gov.uk/downloads/file/6453/protocol_for_webcasting_filming_and_recording_of_council_meetingspdf

 

Minutes:

It was reported that there had been thirteen registrations to speak at the meeting under the Council’s Public Participation Scheme and that six Members of Council had also requested to speak on items, details of which are set out below:

 

 

Next Phase of the Older Persons’ Accommodation Programme: Grove House and Oak haven Older Persons’ Homes

 

Anthony Coleman spoke as the organiser of a petition opposing the closure of Grove House. He referred to the letters submitted setting out his family’s reasons for opposing the closure and highlighted the excellent staff and care the home offered. He requested Members to reconsider the proposals.

 

Carole Simmons spoke on behalf of residents and families connected to the Oakhaven Older Persons’ Home, and in particular questioning the level of engagement and information contained in the Officer’s report. She said that the needs of residents should be first and foremost when considering any changes.

 

Aidan Rylatt, read a statement on behalf of Cllr Craghill in relation to the ward perspective of the proposals for Grove House and the surrounding area. Whilst acknowledging the limits on funding she referred to the challenging deadlines and questioned the proposed options for the three further Council owned homes and the use of any capital receipts in the locality. She asked for assurances that there would be flexibility for residents and their families during any moves.

 

Andrea Dudding speaking on behalf of Unison referred to the elderly citizen’s affected by the proposed moves and to future demographic problems likely to arise from a growing elderly population. She referred to the costs of outsourcing the services and to concerns regarding the staff at risk and echoed Rachael Maskell MP’s concerns regarding timelines and geographical challenges.  

 

The Future of York’s Guildhall and Riverside

 

Charles Cecil, spoke on behalf of the creative industries sector and whilst in support of Option 4, to create a serviced office venue in the Guildhall, he highlighted the large digital creative sector in York and Yorkshire. He referred to the opportunities this presented for the city and suggested that ideally the complex should be used to set up a digital creative media hub for York and the surrounding area.

 

Cllr Levene spoke as Chair of the Corporate & Scrutiny Management Policy & Scrutiny Committee thanking the Executive for the opportunity to feed in comments in relation to proposals for the Guildhall. He reported the Scrutiny Committee’s support for Option 4 as it was felt that it ensured public access, protected the city’s heritage, encouraged high value jobs and provided the best financial return for both the Council and the city.

 

Cllr Taylor spoke to support the recommendation for the future of the Guildhall. He acknowledged that this would provide a sustainable future for the site and support the city as theUK's firstUNESCO City of Media Arts.

 

York’s Southern Gateway

 

John Reeves spoke as Chair of the Helmsley Group, referring to previous master plans prepared for this part of the city over a number of years.  He highlighted the recommendation to procure a joint venture partner and referred to the wealth of knowledge in the city and offered his services to work in collaboration with the Council to deliver a value for money scheme.

 

Paul Hepworth spoke on behalf of the Cyclists’ Touring Club. He circulated a presentation on the Southern Gateway which suggested transport proposals for this area. These included the siting of bus stops/cycle routes in Coppergate, a toucan crossing in Fishergate/Piccadilly and options for bicycle parking in the area. He requested that consideration should be given to the inclusion of some of these cycling principles as part of the scheme.

 

Brian Watson referred to the Castlegate/Piccadilly area highlighting the need for Member and public involvement and engagement in any proposals for the area from its inception. He also requested the inclusion of a height limit on buildings on the site and referred to the New Homes Bonus which he suggested could be used for work on Parliament Street.

 

Cllr Levene confirmed the support of his Group for the Southern Gateway proposals referring to the opportunities this now offered and highlighting the importance of the vision, partnership working and cross party involvement in future work.

 

Cllr Taylor also expressed his support for the progression of the scheme with a joint venture partner and for the provision of underground car parking.

 

Council Tax Support Scheme Review

 

Richard Bridge referred to the cross party consensus to re-examine the Council’s Council Tax Support Scheme (CTS) and the need to make any changes prior to April 2016. He referred to funding of the scheme from Council Tax received from landlord’s empty properties and to problems with the marketing of the Financial Inclusion Scheme. He felt that changes to the CTS would prove more effective and cheaper to administer.

 

Rebecca Jeffrey spoke on behalf of Advice York and the effects of the Council Tax Support Scheme on both families and individuals. From Advice York’s research she requested a reduction in Council Tax payments from 30% to 17% to set it at the level that Courts could collect from claimants for non payment.

 

Cllr Neil Barnes referred to his motion, agreed at the October Council meeting, and questioned why a review of the scheme had not been undertaken earlier. However he thanked Officers for bringing it forward referring to the options and the need to consult and listen to residents and Advice York however he felt that there were risks with the short consultation period if changes were required to the scheme.

 

Cllr Taylor endorsed earlier speaker’s comments and requested no further delay in amending the Council Tax Support Scheme to a level of 17%.

 

Recommendations of the Local Plan Working Group – City of York Local Plan – Objective Assessment of Housing Need

 

Cllr Levene referred to the Council having a moral and economic responsibility to provide an adequate supply of housing and not rely on housing windfall. He also expressed concern that the policies for fracking and the protection of public houses would provide only minimum protection.

 

Protecting Public Houses

 

Nick Love spoke to represent York CAMRA, he asked the Executive to proactively support the protection of local York pubs. This would include the Council website promoting Assets of Community Value (ACV) applicationsand include an easy to understand ACV application pack together with a commitment to involving CAMRA in the formulation of pub friendly planning law within the Local Plan.

 

Paul Crossman spoke as landlord of The Swan and other public houses in the city highlighting local pubs in the city that were now thriving under new ownership. He expressed concern however at the number of public houses that had been neglected and sold for residential development. He therefore requested the inclusion of additional tools in the Local Plan to assist in the retention of local pubs to become community hubs and an asset to their local area.

 

Graham Wilson spoke as a shareholder in the Golden Ball public house highlighting the oversubscription for shares when the pub had been sold. He referred to the demand for housing and to the number of public houses lost in the area which he said amounted to 20% of the city’s pub stock. He requested Members’ support for the protection of local pubs within the Council’s Local Plan.

 

Cllr Kramm also spoke in support of the protection of public houses and referred to the Council’s motion to request Cabinet to introduce an Article 4 Direction in support of this protection. He requested the Executive to support a combination of options one and two as protection measures.

 

Burnholme Development Business Case

 

Cllr Boyce spoke as one of the Ward Members for the Burnholme area. She spoke of a need for the retention of the community use of the premises for the surrounding community and her support for the report recommendations.

 

Cllr Warters spoke to request assurances that Area B shown at pages 126-127of the report would be retained as open space for recreation including formal or informal sport. He also referred to maintenance issues in respect of the site boundary and requested assurances that routine maintenance would be undertaken at an early date. He also expressed concerns at the proposal for the procurement of a single developer for the site.

 

Minerals and Waste Joint Plan – Preferred Options

 

Cllr Kramm requested an amendment to Policy M16: Overall spatial policy for hydrocarbon development, in relation to fracking. He also requested the inclusion of the following additional points to gain further protection in the policy ‘in areas where rainwater accessing ground water’ and at the end of the first policy paragraph of ‘areas within 1.5 miles of settlements.

 

Feedback
Back to the top of the page