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 and / or other Executive Members, in accordance with Standing Order 10(a):
(i) To the Executive Member for City Strategy, from Cllr Merrett:
“Would the Executive Member agree that the state of the back lane through from Scarcroft Hill to Mill Mount, with major potholes and heave, is completely unacceptable, particularly for what is supposed to be the designated safe walking / cycling route between All Saints’ Upper and Lower Schools, and will she give an undertaking to obtain early action to restore the route to a safe state?”
(ii) To the Executive Member for City Strategy, from Cllr Merrett:
“Would the Executive Member also explain why the agreed latter phase of the safe route to school works to remove the blind turn, widen the gap and eliminate the step down between Mill Mount and the back lane has never been undertaken some several years since it was originally agreed, and will she agree to get officers to expedite this long overdue measure to improve personal safety – especially when it’s dark – and to achieve disabled access standards?”
(iii) To the Executive Member for City Strategy, from Cllr Pierce:
“Would the Executive Member explain why there is no local service bus serving the new Morrison’s development as was expected when planning approval was given for the development with a bus corridor through being specifically provided?”
(iv) To the Executive Member for City Strategy, from Cllr Moore:
“Can the Executive Member confirm that there was no consultation with the Council before developers submitted the ‘Clifton Gate’ Eco-town application to the Government?”
(v) To the Executive Member for City Strategy, from Cllr D’Agorne:
“Can you please outline the likely budgetary implications for other council services if we enter into PFI 25-year contracts for both Highways Maintenance and Waste.”
(vi) To the Executive Member for City Strategy, from Cllr D’Agorne:
“Can you report on progress with purchasing sites for waste treatment at Tockwith or elsewhere?”
(vii) To the Executive Member for City Strategy, from Cllr D’Agorne:
“Can you tell me when the agendas and minutes of the Quality Bus Partnership will be made publicly available and can you supply a report to councillors on the decisions of the Partnership since its ‘relaunch’ in September 2007?”
(viii) To the Executive Member for Neighbourhood Services, from Cllr Potter:
“Neighbourhood Services EMAP agreed to provide litter bins in the City Centre with compartments to allow for various items to be recycled. These have been very successful in other cities in the UK. When will they eventually be installed in York and what has been the delay?”
(ix) To the Executive Member for Housing Services, from Cllr Potter:
“The current ‘Discus’ bungalow residents in Heworth and Fishergate Wards are having to move to new properties through no fault of their own. They face a rent increase of over £20 per week. They have no choice in the matter and it is difficult for a pensioner on a fixed income to accommodate such a large increase within their existing budgets. What is the Executive Member going to do to address this unacceptable rent increase to be faced by these elderly and vulnerable residents?”
(x) To the Executive Member for Housing Services, from Cllr Horton:
“Who initiated, and following what consultation was the decision taken, in respect of expenditure of estate management budgets, that suggestions for estate improvements be limited to only those members of the relevant R.A. who turned up for the estate walkabout and would the Executive Member for Housing not consider that such a decision could be regarded as discriminatory against the disabled and infirm and subject to legal challenge, and if not, why not?”
Minutes:
In accordance with Standing Order 10(c)(i), the following questions were put and responses given:
(i) To the Executive Member for City Strategy, from Cllr Merrett:
“Would the Executive Member agree that the state of the back lane through from Scarcroft Hill to Mill Mount, with major potholes and heave, is completely unacceptable, particularly for what is supposed to be the designated safe walking / cycling route between All Saints’ Upper and Lower Schools, and will she give an undertaking to obtain early action to restore the route to a safe state?”
The Executive Member replied:
“Officers inform me that the status of the land is that of ‘private highway’. As such the Council may be undertaking an ultra vires act (i.e. going beyond their legal role and responsibilities) if they use public money to maintain what is a private asset.”
In response to a supplementary question from Cllr Merrett, the Executive Member replied:
“Any request for an early report to EMAP on options to tackle this issue should be made in writing, rather than trying to circumvent the system in this way.”
(ii) To the Executive Member for City Strategy, from Cllr Merrett:
“Would the Executive Member also explain why the agreed latter phase of the safe route to school works to remove the blind turn, widen the gap and eliminate the step down between Mill Mount and the back lane has never been undertaken some several years since it was originally agreed, and will she agree to get officers to expedite this long overdue measure to improve personal safety – especially when it’s dark – and to achieve disabled access standards?”
The Executive Member replied:
“Given my answer to the previous question, we might be in some difficulty carrying out some of the work that Councillor Merrett is suggesting.
Officers inform me that in April 2004 EMAP noted it as a reserve scheme but it would appear that it was not progressed.
Officers can find no record of any member raising the issue during the past four years.
Officers are currently drawing up the 08/09 capital programme and there will, of course, be a Safe Routes to Schools spending block. I am happy for them to consider this as one of the schemes but we will need to take into account the implications of the landownership issue.”
In response to a supplementary question from Cllr Merrett, the Executive Member replied:
“If the matter was raised on a ‘walkabout’ with the Chief Executive, it was not progressed via Transport Planning. I can discuss with the Neighbourhoods department how they would progress issues raised during walkabouts.”1
(iii) To the Executive Member for City Strategy, from Cllr Pierce:
“Would the Executive Member explain why there is no local service bus serving the new Morrison’s development as was expected when planning approval was given for the development with a bus corridor through being specifically provided?”
The Executive Member replied:
“There were discussions with First York, Coastliner and East Yorkshire Motor Services regarding the diversion of bus services via the Foss Islands development when it was first proposed.
First offered, and the Council accepted, re-routing of Grimston Bar P&R via the development. First are, I understand, currently undertaking a review of all their services and are considering the viability of including the development in their services.
East Yorkshire Motor Services have confirmed they will divert some services via the development but they are waiting until bus stops have been established in James Street and Stonebow before changing their existing routes. The Stonebow works are due to start at the end of January and the James Street ones are also well advanced towards implementation.
All bus operators are commercial organisations and, if the service has the potential to increase their patronage, then no doubt they will consider making services available.”
In response to a supplementary question from Cllr Sjmpson-Laing, the Executive Member replied:
“Yes, I would be willing to raise in my discussions with First Bus the suggestions made regarding the re-routing of the no.6 bus.2 Regarding the suggestion that there are no dropped kerbs along James St., I will ask Officers to look into that.”3
(iv) To the Executive Member for City Strategy, from Cllr Moore:
“Can the Executive Member confirm that there was no consultation with the Council before developers submitted the ‘Clifton Gate’ Eco-town application to the Government?”
The Executive Member replied:
“There was no consultation with the Council before developers submitted the eco town application to government.
The Leader of the Council wrote to Hazel Blears, Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, on the 14th December, expressing dismay at the current process which allows developers to put forward to government a major development proposal for York without any consultation with the Council.
It was not until over three weeks after submission was made that the developers contacted the Council to inform us that a bid had been submitted. To date we do not have the full details of the bid and when the Director of City Strategy telephoned the DCLG in December he was told that they would not discuss any individual bids or even confirm that a bid had been received.
No meaningful attempt has been made to involve the Local Authority. This is completely contrary to the requirements of the new planning system which is very much about working with communities and stakeholders with proposals based on evidential need. The letter sought DCLG assurance that if any proposal for an Eco-town in York comes forward that it will be subject to the full rigours of the planning process both at a regional and local level and that they should seek the advice of the Local Planning Authority on the appropriateness or otherwise of any proposal before making such a decision.
The developers submitting the bid have subsequently contacted the Council to arrange a meeting.”
(v) To the Executive Member for City Strategy, from Cllr D’Agorne:
“Can you please outline the likely budgetary implications for other Council services if we enter into PFI 25-year contracts for both Highways Maintenance and Waste?”
The Executive Member replied:
“I am pleased to tell the Council that it has been selected as one of five Councils, by DfT, to refresh the Expression of Interest for Highway Maintenance PFI submitted in September 2006. The refreshed Expression of Interest will be submitted to DfT in mid February and officers are currently preparing the document.
The costs are being amended to take account of changes to the scope, the discount rates, the swap rates and inflation.
If the Council is successful in being selected as a pathfinder project then the earliest the new contract would become operational is autumn 2011.
The likely budgetary implications for other council services are the loss of the contribution towards directorate and corporate overheads and the general fund. It is currently estimated this will be in the order of £0.5m each year.
The latest available figures on the affordability of the waste PFI project were approved by the Executive on 26 June 2007.
The project is currently in the competitive dialogue process.
Solutions are being discussed and, until the outcome of the procurement is complete, the affordability of the project will not be known. However, it is expected to be within the affordability envelope already approved by the Executive on 26 June 2007.”
In response to a supplementary question from Cllr D’Agorne, the Executive Member replied:
“The question of the impact of the project on the continuation of essential services is premature. There will be no impact this year. Any method of dealing with this matter would incur costs and ‘do nothing’ is not an option.”
(vi) To the Executive Member for City Strategy, from Cllr D’Agorne:
“Can you report on progress with purchasing sites for waste treatment at Tockwith or elsewhere?”
The Executive Member replied:
“I am not aware of any plans for the purchase of sites for waste treatment within the CYC boundary.”
In response to a supplementary question from Cllr D’Agorne, the Executive Member replied:
“Waste treatment sites will be needed, but none have been identified in the City of York area. North Yorkshire County Council are progressing the matter via the LDF process.”
(vii) To the Executive Member for City Strategy, from Cllr D’Agorne:
“Can you tell me when the agendas and minutes of the Quality Bus Partnership will be made publicly available and can you supply a report to councillors on the decisions of the Partnership since its ‘relaunch’ in September 2007?”
The Executive Member replied:
“The approved minutes of the Quality Bus Partnership will be forwarded by the Transport Planning Unit to Democratic Services for publication on the Council’s web site at the beginning of next week.4 A report will be prepared for the June 2008 meeting of the Executive Member for City Strategy and Advisory Panel on the decisions of the QBP since its re-launch in September 2007.5 In addition, the current list of outside bodies set out in the Constitution for report to full Council has been referred for reconsideration under the forthcoming constitutional review.”
(viii) To the Executive Member for Neighbourhood Services, from Cllr Potter:
“Neighbourhood Services EMAP agreed to provide litter bins in the City Centre with compartments to allow for various items to be recycled. These have been very successful in other cities in the UK. When will they eventually be installed in York and what has been the delay?”
The Executive Member replied:
“The EMAP on 17th October 2007 agreed to trial an integrated litter and recycling bin design in the city centre. It would be fair to say that experience of this type of bin has been mixed across the country. Two of the bins discussed at October EMAP were put in place in St Helens Square (17 October 2007) and Kings Square (24 October 2007).”
In response to a supplementary question from Cllr Potter, the Executive Member replied:
“This was only intended to be a small scale pilot project. The priority has been to provide kerb side recycling in those areas which do not already have it.”
(ix) To the Executive Member for Housing Services, from Cllr Potter:
“The current ‘Discus’ bungalow residents in Heworth and Fishergate Wards are having to move to new properties through no fault of their own. They face a rent increase of over £20 per week. They have no choice in the matter and it is difficult for a pensioner on a fixed income to accommodate such a large increase within their existing budgets. What is the Executive Member going to do to address this unacceptable rent increase to be faced by these elderly and vulnerable residents?”
The Executive Member replied:
“As Cllr Potter will know, the Director of Housing and Adult Services updated the EMAP meeting, held on Monday 14th January, on the issues surrounding the future increase in rents, for existing tenants, following the redevelopment of the Discus sites.
I understand that York Housing Association could indeed choose to charge differential rents for identical properties on the same site. However this would create a precedent.
Any rents charged by a Housing Association need to be agreed by the regulator and funder, which is the Housing Corporation. The Housing Corporation have agreed the rent levels for the new bungalows as part of the capital grant approval and the financial viability of the project assumed the same rent level. If the rent levels on any of the properties were to change then the financial viability would have to be re appraised and would affect the capital receipt. If this were the case then it is likely that the council would have to start the whole tender evaluation process again. This is therefore unlikely to be a viable option.
The Council cannot use monies from the Housing Revenue Account to benefit residents who are not council tenants. However the council, under the Local Government Act 2000, does have powers for discretionary expenditure to 'promote well being in the local area'.
It may be possible, under these powers, to make a contribution towards the rent for those residents who are responsible for full payment of their rents. However, this would set a precedent for any future redevelopment projects as well as be open to challenge from residents who have been affected by redevelopment of their homes in the past.
There are currently 15 Discus tenants who do not get any financial help with their rent.
We do not know the financial circumstances of these 15 and the Council and York Housing Association will be visiting these people during February as part of a benefit take up campaign.
Some people may be eligible for help through Housing Benefit now and others may be eligible when their rents increase.
There may be some people who do not wish to discuss or disclose any financial information.
By the end of February we will have a clear idea of individual circumstances and how many people, if any, will be directly affected by an increase in their rent.
The new bungalows are unlikely to be ready for occupation for 18 months and we therefore have plenty of time to consider individual circumstances.
The meeting on Monday 14th agreed that no options would be considered further until the existing 15 tenants has been visited and there was a clear picture of how many people, if any, would be ultimately affected by any increase in their rent.
Tenants do, of course, continue to have the option of transferring to another Council property, with a lower rental, should they choose to do so.”
(x) To the Executive Member for Housing Services, from Cllr Horton:
“Who initiated, and following what consultation was the decision taken, in respect of expenditure of estate management budgets, that suggestions for estate improvements be limited to only those members of the relevant R.A. who turned up for the estate walkabout? Would the Executive Member for Housing not consider that such a decision could be regarded as discriminatory against the disabled and infirm and subject to legal challenge, and if not, why not?”
The Executive Member replied:
“The proposed new process for dealing with Estate Improvement budgets was developed by officers in consultation with the Tenants Federation. The intention, I understand, was to encourage more integration between the process and the development of neighbourhood action plans.
I share the questioner’s concern that the process has, so far, not specifically sought suggestions from tenants in an area of benefit, although it was intended to do so for the 09/10 financial year.
While the number of suggestions for improvements submitted by ants has fallen over the years, I do regard the freedom to generate proposals to be an important underpinning principle of any representative process.
I have therefore asked officers to ensure that a letter is sent to all tenants within the next 6 weeks seeking any nominations that they may wish to make for the use of the 08/09 estate improvement budget.
The intention would then be for a list of proposed schemes to be subject to the usual ballot of tenants later in the spring, following initial review by the local Tenants Association and the Ward Planning Team.”
In response to a supplementary question from Cllr Horton, the Executive Member replied:
“Yes, the ballot will be of all tenants.”