Agenda and minutes

To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors R Packham and S Shaw-Wright.

A copy of the Register of Interest for each Selby District Councillor is available for inspection at www.selby.gov.uk.

Councillors should declare to the meeting any disclosable pecuniary interest in any item of business on this agenda which is not already entered in their Register of Interests.

Councillors should leave the meeting and take no part in the consideration, discussion or vote on any matter in which they have a disclosable pecuniary interest.

Councillors should also declare any other interests. Having made the declaration, provided the other interest is not a disclosable pecuniary interest, the Councillor may stay in the meeting, speak and vote on that item of business.

If in doubt, Councillors are advised to seek advice from the Monitoring Officer.

There were no disclosures of interest.

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Council held on Tuesday 15 December 2020.

The Council considered the minutes of the meeting held on 15 December 2020.

RESOLVED:

To approve the minutes of the Council meeting held on 15 December 2020 for signing by the Chairman.

The Chairman, Leader of the Council or the Chief Executive will deal with any communications which need to be reported to the Council.

There were no communications.

To receive any announcements from the Chairman, Leader or Members of the Executive.

There were no announcements.

To receive any petitions.

There were no petitions.

To receive and answer questions, notice of which has been given in accordance with rule 10.1 of the Constitution.

There were no public questions.

To receive and answer questions submitted by councillors in accordance with rule 11.2 of the Constitution.

Councillor Questions Process:

·         Councillors can ask questions in accordance with rule 11.2 of the Constitution.

·         An answer to a question submitted may take the form of:

a)    A direct oral answer;

b)   Where the desired information is in a publication of the Council or other published work, a reference to that publication; or

c)    Where the reply cannot conveniently be given orally, a written answer circulated later to all members of the Council.

·         A councillor asking a question may ask one supplementary question, without notice, of the councillor to whom the first question was asked. The supplementary question must arise directly out of the original question or the reply.

Four questions from Councillors have been submitted for consideration.

It was noted that four questions had been submitted for consideration.

Question One

Councillor J McCartney asked question one which related to untidy land and the Council’s approach in tackling it.

The Leader explained that the Council had asked the landowner to remedy the situation, but that a dispute had ensued following damage to items in question during removal. If is was not removed, the Council would investigate the option of legal action.

Councillor J McCartney expressed his frustration at the amount of time taken to remove the items in question.

Question Two

Councillor M McCartney asked a question relating to the timing of the consultation on the Council’s Local Plan Preferred Options Report.

The Leader stated that that it was the wrong time for local government reorganisation work to be undertaken in North Yorkshire, but that when it came to the Local Plan, the Council had been given clear instructions by central government that every authority had to have an up-to-date Local Plan and Five-Year Housing Land Supply. As such, the work being undertaken by Officer had to continue, and the need for a housing land supply was especially important in order to prevent development in the district that both Members and residents would not want. Local authorities had asked the government for more time due to the pandemic, but they had not been forthcoming with extensions of time.

Councillor M McCartney asked a supplemental question regarding the future of the Council’s Local Plan should devolution go ahead.

The Leader explained that should, for example, a North Yorkshire unitary model be decided upon, each local authority’s Local Plan would be amalgamated into a single county-wide plan, until the time came for one overarching plan to be developed for the whole county.

Question Three

Councillor J McCartney asked a question about the fly tipping of tyres in the district.

The Lead Executive Member for Housing, Health and Culture described to Members how the Council relied on local people to report fly tipping in the district, and that Officers had been working with other local authorities such as Doncaster and Leeds to try to identify the source of the tyres. In 2019-20 there had been 50 incidents, and in 2020-21 35 to date, which was a reduction. However, even one occurrence was too many. The Council had deployed CTV units that were operational 24/7 and had numerous fixed penalty notices and fines at its disposal to issue to those caught fly tipping, littering, dog fouling or failing in household duty of care. The income current from fines and fixed penalty notices was around £5,800.

Councillor J McCartney asked a supplemental question, asking what was being done by the Council and other local authorities to track down the origins of the tyres.

The Lead Executive Member for Housing, Health and Culture acknowledged that it was very difficult to trace the source of the tyres, and that they were often dumped across the whole district.

Question Four

Councillor J McCartney asked a question  ...  view the full minutes text for item 44.

The Leader of the Council, and other members of the Executive, will report on their work since the last meeting of the Council and will respond to questions from Councillors on that work.

Councillor Mark Crane, Leader of the Council

The Leader of the Council presented his update on the work he had recently undertaken, as outlined in his report and added that he had heard nothing more about the timetable for local government reorganisation but was expecting to hear from the government by the end of February 2021, after which the consultation would begin. The Leader also stated that he had that week heard that there would be further negotiations on the devolution deal put forward by the local authorities in North Yorkshire; these were expected to happen over the next few weeks.

A query was raised regarding the need to go into Part II to discuss elements of the following matter, relating to the Summit Leisure Centre and its future, particularly if it would open again, and if the Council would have to pay back any of the grants from Sport England for the build.

It was clarified by the Chief Executive that if the information was already publicly available, it would not be necessary to move into Part II. However, if discussions entered the realm of future negotiations, it may be advisable to move into private session later in the meeting. The Solicitor to the Council was in agreement with the Chief Executive’s advice to Members, and as such, the Chair stated that any discussions relating to the question should be undertaken in Part II.

Another question was submitted to the Leader regarding the proposed unitary arrangements in North Yorkshire and whether residents’ views would truly be taken into account as part of the consultation. The Leader explained that the government had published a list of who would be consulted with and had also stated that any parish/town council or individual could make representations, but that at the conclusion of the process it would be a government decision.

Councillor Richard Musgrave, Deputy Leader and Lead Executive Member for Place Shaping

The Deputy Leader of the Council presented his update on the work he had recently undertaken, as outlined in his report and added that he had attended the majority of the public enquiry relating to the site at Main Street, Church Fenton, for which a decision was expected from the Planning Inspectorate by the end of the month.

Members asked about responses to the Councils’ Local Plan consultation and for an update on the work; the Deputy Leader confirmed that there were still three weeks left for the consultation, but that engagement had been promising with thousands of interactions online on the matter.

A question was asked about the new Officer role relating to the Council’s carbon capture work, including the proposed salary and if evaluations from the Officer be considered by the Executive and then full Council. The Deputy Leader was unable to reveal the salary but could confirm that there was a strong shortlist of candidates, with the low carbon work (including that of the Low Carbon Working Group) progressing very well. It was important that all elements  ...  view the full minutes text for item 45.

To receive reports from the Council’s committees which need to be brought to the attention of Council. To receive questions and provide answers on any of those reports.

Report of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee

There was no report from the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

Councillor Andrew Lee, Chair of the Policy Review Committee

Councillor Lee, Chairman of the Policy Review Committee, provided an update on the work of the Committee as outlined in his report.

A query was raised regarding the work of the Low Carbon Working Group and White Rose Forest Partnership.

The Chair explained that the Low Carbon Working Group had made great strides and produced action plan that, as it stood, would take carbon emissions to net zero in ten years. The action plan had been considered by the Executive who had requested that further scoping work be undertaken; the Working Group were in broad agreement with this suggestion. The enhanced action plan, which was being worked on by Officers, would then be presented to the Executive for approval. Members noted that there were several interventions and business cases within the plan that would need to be costed up to ensure value for money.

With regards to tree planting, the Chair of Policy Review reported that at the last meeting of the Policy Review Committee it had been agreed that the number of trees to be planted in the district, in conjunction with the White Rose Forest Partnership, should be increased. 

The input of Members into the development of the Working Group and the Committee itself had been meaningful; the Chair was pleased that as a Council, such a robust plan had been developed by Members for the future.

A second query was raised regarding when the tree planting would commence in the Selby area; the Chair of Policy Review stated that the Council had committed to a considerable increase in the number of trees across the district over the coming years, in conjunction with the White Rose Forest Partnership. Partnership working to identify pieces of land on which to plant trees was key to the project, as well as articulating to landowners the benefits of tree planting on their land; the fact that the agreement had been reached and the process had begun was a positive step forward. The Chair confirmed that he was happy to keep Members updated with the tree planting progress. The Lead Executive Member for Place Shaping expressed his support for the tree planting project.

Councillor E Jordan left the meeting at this point and did not return.

Councillor Karl Arthur, Chair of the Audit and Governance Committee

Councillor Arthur, Chairman of the Audit and Governance Committee, provided an update on the work of the Committee as outlined in his report. There were no questions.

It was proposed, seconded and agreed by the Council to note the reports.

RESOLVED:

                        To note the reports.

To consider any motions.

There were no motions.

To consider a report which provides Council with assurance on the proposed budget and the Council’s reserves in order to formally set the budget and Council Tax for 2021/22.

Karen Iveson, Chief Finance Officer presented the report which provided the Council with assurance on the proposed budget and the Council’s reserves in order to formally set the budget and Council Tax for 2021-22.

The Chief Finance Officer confirmed that she felt that the Council’s budget proposals were robust and that the reserves were adequate.

RESOLVED:

To consider the Chief Finance Officer’s statements in paragraphs 2.7 and 2.13 of the report when setting the Council Tax.

REASON FOR DECISION:

To provide Council with assurance on the proposed budget and the Council’s reserves in order to formally set the budget and Council Tax for 2021-22.

In accordance with The Local Authorities (Standing Orders) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2014, all local authorities must record in their minutes how each Councillor voted (or abstained from voting) on the question of Budget and Council tax setting at the ‘Budget Decision Meeting’ of the Council. This rule will therefore apply and a recorded vote will be taken on this item.

To consider a report which presents Executive’s proposed revenue budget; capital programmes and the Programme for Growth for 2020/21 to 2023/24.

Councillor Lunn, Lead Executive Member for Finance and Resources provided a presentation on Executive’s proposed revenue budget, capital programmes and outline Programme for Growth for 2021-22 to 2022-23. The proposed budget also set out recommendations for formal Council Tax setting.

The key elements of the presentation were as follows:

·           The proposals before Members were approved by the Executive at their meeting on 4 February 2021 following briefings for political groups, public consultation and consideration by Policy Review Committee.

·           The budget had been set against the backdrop of Covid-19 and the prospect of local government reorganisation in North Yorkshire, a time of unprecedented risk and uncertainty.

·           The proposed budget delivered the necessary financial investment to meet the Council’s stated priorities, balanced the investment of cash windfalls with future financial sustainability, and allocated resources and reserves to support financial resilience and manage risk.

·           Savings had been delayed to 2023-24 with limited discretionary growth; there was to be a focus on delivering existing plans.

·           Members noted the General Fund £22.5m net revenue budget, with a precept of £5.875m. The final Local Government Finance Settlement amount was a rollover of 2020-21 with some additional one-off funding of circa £1.6m. Due to on-going Covid impacts and the prospect of local government review, the budget included substantial contingencies.

·           There was £184k of savings, with the rest to be reprofiled out to 2023-24. The overall net cost of £2.1m (after Council Tax, Business Rates and other government funding) would be covered by the Business Rates Equalisation Reserve.

·           It was proposed that there would be a freeze in the Band D charge, remaining at £183.22 in 2021-22. The tax base was 32,064.65 (showing 0.24% growth), and the precept being calculated from multiplying the base with the Band D charge; this equalled £5,874,885.

·           With regards to the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) there was an £8.7m net revenue budget with a surplus of £3.6m (available for major repairs). A rent increase of 1.5% had been approved by the Executive in January 2021 from an average of £84.98 in 2020/21 to £86.37 in 2021/22, on a 48-week basis. It also included £195k of planned savings. The capital programme would require a drawdown of funds from the Major Repairs Reserve.

·           Members noted that there were numerous budget risks, including the on-going Covid impacts on services such as leisure, key income streams being under pressure, delays in savings delivery, the development of a new government funding formula, rates retention being under review, including renewable energy business rates receipts; the future was uncertain as the Council approached a potential system reset from 2022/23. Lastly, the New Homes Bonus was also to be reviewed, with a consultation launched recently.

·           Risk mitigation had been considered with contingency budgets available; there was £2.4m in the General Fund and £75k in the HRA. Reserves were used to plan for long term commitments and provide a buffer to manage risks, as well as providing a resource to fund capital programmes.

·           There were significant revenue and capital investments already planned  ...  view the full minutes text for item 49.

To consider a report which seeks approval of the Council’s Pay Policy Statement 2021/22 in accordance with section 38 of the Localism Act 2011.

Councillor Crane, Leader of the Council, presented the report which sought approval of the Council’s Pay Policy Statement 2021-22 in accordance with section 38 of the Localism Act 2011.

RESOLVED:

                        To approve the Pay Policy Statement for 2021-22.

REASON FOR DECISION:

To comply with Localism Act 2011 (the Act) to prepare a Pay Policy Statement articulating the Council’s policy towards the pay of the workforce.

To consider the Treasury Management Strategy.

Councillor Lunn, Lead Executive Member for Finance and Resources presented the report which presented for approval the proposed Treasury Management Strategy together with the Minimum Revenue Provision Policy Statement, Annual Investment Strategy for 2021/22, Capital Strategy 2021/22 and Prudential Indicators 2021/22 as required by the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government and CIPFA. 

Members noted the capital expenditure plans for the next three years, along with re-profiled budgets carried forward from 2020/21 total £48.62m, which included Housing Delivery projects and Programme for Growth. Given the anticipated level of expenditure, whilst there were no immediate plans to externally borrow, authorised borrowing limits were set at £78m to enable prudent assessment of the Council’s borrowing needs over the year.

Councillor Lunn also explained that cash balances were expected to remain relatively high over the three-year period, whilst Programme for Growth projects were still in progress, due to re-profiled capital plans. The Council would continue to adopt the NYCC investment strategy for cash balances, along with consideration of other alternative investment opportunities, where considered prudent and operating within CIPFA’s investment guidance.

A question was asked by Members regarding the potential increase in interest rates, and how this would affect the Council’s own interest rates. Councillor Lunn explained that it would not affect the rates the Council paid but would affect those on the monies it lent. The rates paid by the authority were set through the Public Works Lending Board at fixed rates for a fixed term.

RESOLVED: That

i)             the Operational Borrowing Limit for 2021/22 be set at £73m.

ii)            the Authorised Borrowing Limit for 2021/22 be set at £78m.

iii)          Councillors delegate authority to the Chief Finance Officer to effect movement within the agreed authorised boundary limits for long-term borrowing for 2021/22 onwards.

iv)          Councillors delegate authority to the Chief Finance Officer to effect movement within the agreed operational boundary limits for long-term borrowing for 2021/22 onwards.

v)            the treasury management strategy statement 2021/22 be approved.

vi)          the minimum revenue provision policy statement for 2021/22 be approved.

vii)         the treasury management investment strategy for 2021/22 be approved.

viii)       the prudential indicators for 2021/22 which reflect the capital expenditure plans which are affordable, prudent and sustainable be approved.

ix)          the Capital Strategy for 2021/22 be approved.

REASON FOR DECISION:

To ensure the Council’s Treasury Management Strategy and associated policies are prudent and affordable.

To consider a report which outlines recommendations from the Independent Remuneration Panel on Selby District Council’s Members’ Allowances Scheme.

The Solicitor to the Council introduced the report which, as per the Local Authorities (Members’ Allowances) (England) Regulations 2003, stated that all local authorities had to convene an Independent Remuneration Panel to review and make recommendations on Members’ Allowances. The local authority must then consider the recommendations of the Panel before agreeing or amending their Members’ Allowances Scheme.

The last review of the Members’ Allowances Scheme was undertaken in late 2016 and early 2017. The Local Authorities (Members’ Allowances) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2003 stated that if a scheme was referenced to an index (the current Members scheme is indexed to the National Joint Council (NJC) pay award) then it needed to be reviewed no later than four years from when the scheme was introduced. In light of this, a Panel had been convened and a review undertaken; the recommendations of the Panel were outlined in the report.

Members noted that at page 179 of the agenda the Special Responsibility Allowance (SRA) listed for ‘Licensing Committee’ should have read ‘Chair of Licensing Committee’.

RESOLVED: It was agreed

i)             to amalgamate the ICT allowance with the basic allowance resulting in the ICT allowance also being subject to the annual increase with the NJC pay award; however, to retain the wording relating to guidelines for Members on the usage of their ICT device.

ii)            to retain all of the special responsibility allowances as currently weighted and outlined in the Members’ Allowances Scheme.

iii)          to incorporate wording under the Travel and Subsistence part of the scheme to allow non-Councillors appointed by the Council to outside bodies to claim mileage or travel costs for attending meetings where representing the Council, provided such expenses were not re-imbursed by the respective Outside Body.

iv)          to retain the Dependents’ / Child Carers’ allowance as currently worded in the Members’ Allowances’ Scheme.

v)            to retain the Chairman’s and Vice Chairman’s allowance as currently worded in the Members’ Allowances’ Scheme.

vi)          to index the overall Members’ Allowances Scheme to match local government pay settlements using the NJC annual pay award until the next review of the scheme. 

The Chief Executive will report on any instances where she has acted in urgent or emergency situations under the functions delegated to her in the Constitution.

The Chief Executive reported that on 12 January 2021 Councillor J McCartney had been appointed to Cridling Stubbs Parish Council, in accordance with Section 91 of the Local Government Act 1972, until such time as sufficient councillors were elected or co-opted on to the parish council to restore the quorum.

Lastly, the Chief Executive confirmed that written answers would be sent to Councillor Nichols after the meeting in response to the following two questions:

1.    Was the Council charging rent for the use of the Summit (Leisure Centre) as a vaccination centre?

2.    If the Summit did not reopen as a leisure centre, would the Council have to pay back some of the grant money that had been awarded to it for its use as a leisure facility?