At this point in the meeting members of the public who have registered to speak can do so. Members of the public may speak on agenda items or on matters within the remit of the committee.
Please note that our registration deadlines have changed to 2 working days before the meeting, in order to facilitate the management of public participation at remote meetings. The deadline for registering at this meeting is 5:00pm on Tuesday, 21 July 2020.
To register to speak please contact Democratic Services, on the details at the foot of the agenda. You will then be advised on the procedures for dialling into the remote meeting.
Webcasting of Remote Public Meetings
Please note that, subject to available resources, this remote public meeting will be webcast including any registered public speakers who have given their permission. The remote public meeting can be viewed live and on demand at www.york.gov.uk/webcasts.
During coronavirus, we've made some changes to how we're running council meetings. See our coronavirus updates (www.york.gov.uk/COVIDDemocracy ) for more information on meetings and decisions.
It was reported that there had been 4 registrations to speak at the meeting under the Council’s Public Participation Scheme, and 4 requests to speak by Ward Members / Opposition Spokespersons. Written representations had also been received and circulated to Members.
Gwen Swinburn spoke on matters within the Executive’s remit, and on Agenda Item 4 (Forward Plan). She expressed concerns about the council’s arrangements for returning to a normal schedule of meetings, the uneven distribution of items across meetings, and inadequate public consultation in respect of devolution.
Cllr Heaton spoke on Agenda Item 5 (York Central Update) as a Ward Member for Holgate. He expressed doubt about the viability of the project in the ‘new normal’ conditions post Covid-19 and concern that it would not benefit Holgate residents. He suggested that a full review should take place before proceeding further.
Cllr Melly also spoke on Item 5 as a Ward Member for Holgate. Referring to calls from residents of the Leeman Road area for more community space, she suggested that Network Rail transfer the Gatehouse building to the council for that purpose in return for the proposed disposal of land to NR.
Richard Clark spoke on Item 5 as a resident of Micklegate and a member of York Central Action Group. However, his connection was lost. The Chair invited him to submit his comments in writing instead, to be made available in the same way as the other written representations.
Cllr Webb spoke on Agenda Item 7 (City of York Recovery & Renewal Strategy – Update), as Opposition Spokesperson for Children & Young People. He expressed concern about a lack of detail and data in parts of Annex 5, and stressed that any relaxation of safeguards for vulnerable children would not be acceptable.
Martin Bradnam, Chair of the Hospitality Association York, spoke on the Tourism Marketing Recovery Strategy at Annex 4 to Item 7. He had also submitted detailed comments in writing. He welcomed the investment but felt the strategy had taken too long and was not detailed enough; more should be done to join up ideas, engage local residents and attract visitors back to the city.
Phil Pinder, Chair of York Retail Forum, also spoke on Annex 4 to Item 7. He supported the views of the previous speaker, adding the suggestion that September be designated a ‘residents’ month’ and the car parking offer extended into October to encourage people back to York.
Cllr Douglas spoke on Item 7 and on Item 8 (Submission of Devolution Proposal), as Opposition Spokesperson for Economy & City Development. On the former, she raised concerns about businesses that not received grants, a lack of investment in re-training and skills, and the weakness of the tourism strategy. On the latter, she noted that funding from the devolution deal would be insufficient to support York’s housing needs.
Written representations were received from Steve Galloway in respect of Agenda Item 8, objecting to the proposals being brought forward at this stage, on the grounds of inadequate pre-publicity and consultation and a lack of consideration of alternatives to the elected mayor devolution model.