Agenda and minutes

To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors J Cattanach, K Ellis, C Richardson and J 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.

Councillors S Duckett and J Mackman both declared a non-pecuniary interest in agenda item 14 – Medium Term Financial Strategy as they were both board representatives on the Selby District Housing Trust; both Members confirmed that they would be leaving the meeting during consideration thereof.

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the meetings of the Council held on 13 April 2021 and 27 April 2021.

The Council considered the minutes of the meetings held on 13 April 2021 and 27 April 2021.

RESOLVED:

To approve the minutes of the Council meetings held on 13 April 2021 and 27 April 2021 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.

The Leader informed the Council of the recently announced decision that a unitary authority would be established in North Yorkshire from 2023, and as such, that Selby District Council would be abolished. This had been communicated to all staff and Members.

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

Members noted that the seating arrangement of the Council had been amended slightly in order for the Executive to face other Councillors during the meeting, and to improve the view as the meeting was streamed online.

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.

Two questions from Councillors have been submitted for consideration.

Two questions had been submitted for consideration.

Question 1

Councillor J McCartney asked question one to the Lead Executive Member for Health and Culture, which related to the potential prosecution of businesses, particularly takeaways, if they were not disposing of waste properly.

The Lead Executive Member for Health and Culture explained that the Council did prosecute and had been doing so since 2011, and that offenders were either taken to court, issued with a fixed penalty notice (FPN) or a caution. FPNs were £400 and decisions to issue these were taken by Enforcement Officers in conjunction with the Council’s Legal Team. The Executive Member stated that FPNs were often the most appropriate way of dealing with such offences. Local businesses had a duty of care and were required to register with the local authority who would remove their waste; alternatively, they could pay for a private company to take it away. Fines were issued if it was not.

Fast food companies also had to comply in terms of waste disposal, and litter picking arranged by some of these establishments had been organised. Members were asked to provide the Executive Member or Officers with evidence if they were aware of breaches of appropriate waste disposal.

Councillor J McCartney emphasised the importance of prosecuting and publicising those people and businesses that offended. For some larger chains their waste was thrown away across the entire district, not just near the branches at which litter picks had been organised.

Question 2

Councillor M McCartney asked the second question which related to the number of CCTV cameras in use throughout the district to tackle fly tipping.

The Lead Executive Member confirmed that there were currently two CCTV cameras being used in the district, both of which worked during day and night times. The Council was required to erect signs to make the public aware that CCTV was in use, although Officers had requested a covert camera, for which a legal agreement was required. Members noted that numberplate data could be useful when tracking fly tipping, but that the police were often reluctant to release the data; however, an ANPR vehicle would soon be operating in the district which it was hoped would assist with numberplate recognition and tracking.

Councillor M McCartney asked if there were plans for any further cameras in the district as a supplementary question; the Executive Member expressed his hope that more cameras would be purchased and installed and committed to keeping all Members informed on the matter.

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 a seminar on the recent announcements regarding local government reorganisation (LGR) in North Yorkshire would be held for all Councillors very soon. The Leader also expressed his disappointment that such a decision had been taken.

Members asked if any further information regarding LGR was available; the Leader explained that there was none at present asides from an email from the Leader of North Yorkshire County Council, and the expected upcoming presentation to be given at the meeting of the Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) board the following day.

Queries were raised regarding the potential effect of working from home on staff performance, whether working from home would continue to be supported in the future and if Selby District had taken in a proportional share of the recent refugee families from Afghanistan.

The Leader confirmed that refugee families from Syria and Afghanistan had been housed by the Council; every authority in North Yorkshire had been offered refugee families and all had taken some in, apart from Ryedale District Council. Two houses had been prepared for them to the same level as any tenant, but extra monies had been received from central government which had been used for additional furnishings in the properties.

Performance of the Council had been maintained whilst staff had worked from home, but those members of staff who wanted to come into the office could do so. Moving forward, the Leader felt that he would want staff members to come into the offices at least once a week, as it was important for teams to see one another and stay in contact; but there would be no compulsion for them to come in.

Further queries were asked of the Leader relating to the availability of tenant services and work on adaptations following the pandemic. The Leader confirmed that the amount of work being done in people’s homes had reduced due to the pandemic, but that the backlog was being reduced with most types of jobs able to be done. The Leader informed Members that he would need to take away the query around adaptations and respond to all Members in due course. The Leader also made the point that some tenants still did not feel comfortable having staff in their homes to do repairs, and as such, these were still outstanding. Most void properties needed a great deal of remedial work.

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

The Deputy Leader of the Council presented his update on the work recently undertaken as outlined in his report and added that 44 potential development sites had been agreed for consultation at the last meeting of the Executive held on 8 July 2021. The consultation would take place until 13 September 2021 as part of the work on the Council’s next local plan.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 17.

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.

Councillor Karl Arthur, Chairman 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 for Councillor Arthur.

Councillor Chris Pearson, Chairman of the Policy Review Committee

Councillor Pearson, Chairman of the Policy Review Committee, provided an update on the work of the Committee, as set out below:

Update from Low Carbon Working Group

Officers gave an update following the last meeting of the Working Group held on 6 July. There was a real emphasis from Members on the importance of moving forward with both short and longer term projects, such as tree planting in the autumn, to start reducing the Council’s carbon footprint. The next meeting of the Working Group was arranged for late August.

Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS)

The Committee were given an overview of the MTFS by Officers and the Executive Member for Finance who was also in attendance. Members asked various questions on the Selby Station Gateway Project, the Council’s work towards carbon neutrality, the future of the Summit Centre and interest rates and their potential effect on the MTFS. Overall, the Committee were happy with the Executive’s recommendations to Council.

Proposed Taxi Licensing Consultation on Statutory Taxi and Private Hire Vehicle Standards

Officers introduced the report and asked the Committee for their comments. Members queried the need for 6-monthly DBS checks and believed they could respond to the consultation themselves should they have specific concerns; the Committee were content for the consultation to be taken forward as it stood.

Car Parking Update

Members were pleased to note that new tariff schemes, signage and machines had been implemented, and the work on large EV charging units had been completed. Officers would supply information to Members later as to the number of people using the £1 tariff. There had been a drop in car park revenue due to the pandemic, which it was hoped would recover following the lifting of restrictions on 19 July. Officers would shortly be looking at the provision of a new long stay car park in Selby, and the refurbishment of the car park at Back Micklegate.

Universal Credit Update

The Committee expressed their concerns as to the rise in the number of people claiming Universal Credit, as well as the government’s additional payment for Universal Credit claimants coming to an end. Ring-fenced grants for homelessness were received from the government, but rent debt had also been accruing which, with the courts reopening, could lead to some evictions. Members asked that homelessness was brought to a future meeting of the Committee, as well as the criteria for the use of any money left from the government’s grant; Officers explained that just before the pandemic the Council’s new Homelessness Strategy had been agreed, and as a result this could also be explored.

Fly tipping and Littering

As requested at a previous meeting, Members were given an overview of fly tipping  ...  view the full minutes text for item 18.

To consider any motions.

There were no motions.

To consider the report on the Council’s Community Legacy Fund.

Councillor Buckle, Lead Executive Member for Communities and Economic Development introduced the item, which asked the Council to agree to the establishment of a Community Legacy Fund.

Members noted that in April 2021 the Council had reviewed the Constitution and agreed to change the way in which it engaged and funded community activity. The Community Engagement Forum (CEF) process was replaced with a Member’s Locality Fund approach, to enable Members to engage directly with communities and to support small community projects. On 8 July 2021, the Executive had considered a report which outlined options for developing a Selby District Community Fund, using the CEF 2020-21 underspend.The Executive had approved the donation, subject to appropriate conditions, of the CEF 2020/21 underspend of £100,000 to Two Ridings Community Foundation to establish a Selby District Community Fund.

Members acknowledged that when it was considered by the Executive, a North Yorkshire Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) outcome had not yet been announced. The Executive report also included consideration of establishing a legacy Endowment Fund. This was a fund which would be invested to generate an annual return into the Selby District Community Fund and would offer permanent investment into the Selby District community. The Council would then be able to secure a legacy fund which remained specific to Selby District residents and communities, indefinitely.

The Council were reminded that a working group of Officers and representative Group Members had been established to discuss options for the use of remaining CEF funds. This group received a presentation alongside the Executive, from Two Ridings Community Foundation. The purpose of the presentation was to highlight options for community funding management and investment. Options included direct, finite use of the £100,000, as well as potential to attract finite match funding, and to look at an endowment investment approach which could offer both long-term match funding and interest growth. The discussions considered whether this provided opportunity to offer a solution to securing community investment into the district for the long-term future.

The report outlined the objectives of a Community Legacy Fund, with various delivery options and how the endowment fund approach was considered; the accompanying appendices gave an overview of Two Ridings Community Foundation, and the latter part of the report provided consideration of the model, including the preferred option.

Several questions were asked, and views expressed at the meeting, with general support from Members for the proposals. It was felt that providing a legacy for the district, considering the recent announcements around local government reorganisation in North Yorkshire, was particularly important.

It was debated by the Council as to whether the amount to invest should be increased from £1m to £2m; this suggestion was welcomed by Members. The Executive Member for Finance and Resources believed that the Council could financially afford the increased amount. Following a further question, Members were reassured that Officers had considered other providers but that the Two Ridings Community Foundation was seen as the best option; a number of other local authorities had invested  ...  view the full minutes text for item 20.

To consider the request for funding from Tadcaster Community Sports Trust.

The Leader of the Council presented the report which asked the Council to award funds to the Tadcaster Community Sports Trust and to delegate authority to Officers, in consultation with himself, to enter into a grant funding agreement between Selby District Council and Tadcaster Community Sports Trust (TCST), to secure the achievement of agreed key deliverables from the payment, by imposition of appropriate conditions.

Members noted that TCST had exciting plans to move forward with the development of a community-led, multi-sports hub at the Tadcaster Queen’s Garden site in the town centre. Several groups and sports bodies were interested in using the field and had numerous ideas that could be explored and delivered by capable people in the community.

The report went on to explain that the trust had asked the Council for assistance to realise the plans through a grant which could support the development of early-stage work and increase opportunities to access further funding as the project progressed. An original request for the first phase of the project was for £192k to develop business planning, community engagement, the master plan and detailed design costs. The Executive had agreed to an initial grant of £30k to support that work, with a recommendation to Council to support the Trust with the remainder of the funding.

Some Members expressed a concern that there board of trustees was currently populated by five men; it was very important to widen the base of representation and ensure that women were also appointed to the board. Members also commented that the Council should have some influence over the fee amount to join the sports club to ensure it stayed affordable for the community, that the project was sustainable and that the land on which the club was planned was properly and legally secured.

Members questioned the amount requested (£192k), which was a large sum; the Leader explained that this was the maximum amount specified in the tender document, and that it was unlikely the project would cost that much. The importance of similar projects being delivered across the district was raised, with the Leader encouraging other communities and groups to come forward to apply for funding soon.

The recommendations as set out in the report were proposed and seconded, and a vote was taken.

RESOLVED: The Council approved

i.              that the remainder of the requested amount of £162k be awarded to TCST; and

ii.            that authority be delegated to the Director of Economic Regeneration and Place, in consultation with the Leader of the Council, to enter into a grant funding agreement between Selby District Council and Tadcaster Community Sports Trust (TCST) to secure achievement of agreed key deliverables from the £162k payment, by imposition of appropriate conditions.

To consider the Medium Term Financial Strategy.

Councillors S Duckett and J Mackman left the meeting at this point and did not return.

The Lead Executive Member for Finance and Resources, Councillor Lunn, introduced the item which asked the Council to consider and agree the recommendations as set out in the report.

Members acknowledged that the report presented an update to the Medium-Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) covering both the General Fund and Housing Revenue Account (HRA). It considered the budget pressures and issues facing the Council over the next 3 years and beyond, in light of the on-going financial impacts of Covid-19 and local government reorganisation (LGR) in North Yorkshire.

The Council were informed that 2020/21 was a year of major uncertainty as the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic unfolded and the government’s plans for potential reorganisation in North Yorkshire were announced. The government’s proposals for a reviewed local government funding system were delayed, and once again 2021/22 was a one-year settlement. Against this backdrop of uncertainty, the key drivers for the financial strategy remained unchanged although the level of risk had increased. The strategy identified a range of emerging issues, including the government’s waste strategy. The MTFS also set out the Council’s reserves strategy which sought to set aside sums to cover known commitments and financial risk, as well as earmarking resources to support delivery of the ‘Council Plan’.

Members noted that the savings requirement was estimated to rise to £2.8m within the next 3 years, although this was very much dependent upon future local government finance settlements. The worst case showed the gap rising to nearly £4m over the next 3 years. Additionally, given on-going Covid and local government reorganisation, capacity was focussed on direct delivery of services and projects and it was proposed that savings were deferred a further year to 2024/25, with reserves being used to bridge the gap in the meantime; it was proposed that £11.9m be held in the Business Rates Equalisation Reserve for this purpose, with £8m available for alternative use.

The report also detailed that a modest level of savings was assumed over the next 3 years, but in the longer-term income generation would be key, with charging for green waste and alternative use for the Summit to be brought forward for consideration in due course. Local government reorganisation also presented the opportunity for further service transformation and efficiency.

The General Fund and HRA capital programmes had been reviewed to ensure they were deliverable, and some reprioritisations were proposed, including withdrawal of the General Fund housing development programme and extension of the HRA to ensure maximisation of s106 spend.

Members understood that the Programme for Growth had also been reviewed, with the allocation of funds to carbon reduction work reduced to cover those elements that could be delivered within the next 2 years, with £950k available for alternative use. In addition, a further £8m was proposed for release from the Business Rates Equalisation Reserve to the Programme for Growth from 2021/22, and following discussion at the Executive meeting on  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22.

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 the urgent action she had agreed since the previous meeting of the Council in April 2021, which was the cancellation of the meeting of the Council on 13 July 2021, and its rearrangement to 22 July 2021.

In addition, the Chief Executive asked for the agreement of Council that not attending a physical meeting in person for a six-month period, for reasons associated with the Covid pandemic, would not disqualify a District Councillor under the automatic vacation of office provisions set out in section 85 of the Local Government Act 1972.

It was proposed, seconded and a vote was taken on the above proposal.

RESOLVED: The Council

a)    noted the urgent action as reported by the Chief Executive; and

b)   agreed that not attending a physical meeting in person for a six-month period, for reasons associated with the Covid pandemic, would not disqualify a District Councillor under the automatic vacation of office provisions set out in section 85 of the Local Government Act 1972.