Agenda and minutes

To receive apologies for absence.

There were no apologies for absence.

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 Thursday 17 December 2019.

The Council considered the minutes of the meeting held on 17 December 2019.

RESOLVED:

To approve the minutes of the Council meeting held on 17 December 2019 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 updated the Council on the flooding situation in the district, particularly at Hirst Courtney and in relation to the closure of the A19 between Chapel Haddlesey and Whitley. The Environment Agency were working closely with Council Officers who had been out assisting residents late into the night. The Leader thanked the Head of Operational Services and her team for all their hard work.

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

The Chairman reminded Members about his upcoming charity concert in March to be held at Selby Abbey and encouraged them to purchase tickets for the event. He also thanked former Chairman Cllr David Buckle for his assistance in planning and publicising the event.

To receive any petitions.

There were no petitions received.

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

Public Questions Process:

·         Members of the public can ask questions in accordance with rule 10 of the Constitution.

·         The Chairman will invite the questioner to put the question,   if a questioner who has submitted a written question is unable to be present, they may ask the Chairman to put the question on their behalf. The Chairman may ask the question on the questioner’s behalf, indicate that a written reply will be given or decide, in the absence of the questioner, that the question will not be dealt with.

·         A questioner who has put a question in person may also put one supplementary question without notice to the person who has replied to his or her original question. A supplementary question must arise directly out of the original question or the reply

One question from a member of the public has been received.

A public question had been received from Mr David Bowgett, who put the following question to the Lead Executive Member for Housing, Health and Culture:

“In the past, Selby District Council’s policy with regards to public toilets has been to encourage businesses to make their toilets available, rather than providing purpose-built facilities. Is this still the council’s policy, and if so, do you believe it to be an adequate one, particularly when it comes to meeting the needs of handicapped people?”

Councillor C Pearson responded by explaining that he was not aware of a Council policy on public toilets, but that the Council did provide facilities and also had agreements with local businesses who would make their facilities available to the public if needed.

Mr Bowgett asked a supplementary question regarding the toilets in Tadcaster at the bus station, which were often out of order.

Councillor Pearson confirmed that he would investigate why the toilets at Tadcaster bus station were not currently working.

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.

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

Question One

Councillor J McCartney asked question one which related to the length of recent sentences given to convicted fly-tippers, and if the Council was raising the issue of longer sentences with Central Government and the judiciary.

The Leader sympathised with Councillor McCartney’s frustration, and explained that he had again written to the magistrates on the matter but had received no response. He went on to confirm that he had also raised the issue of fly-tipping with Nigel Adams MP, at the District Councils Network and the Local Government Association and would continue to do so.

Councillor McCartney felt that the imposition of larger fines by local authorities would act as a better deterrent.

Question Two

Councillor J McCartney asked question two, which related to prosecutions and fixed penalty notices for fly-tipping tyres, and what efforts were being made to trace the origin of fly-tipped tyres by Trading Standards and the police forces from West and South Yorkshire and the East Riding of Yorkshire.

The Lead Executive Member for Housing, Health and Culture explained the difficulty in tracing fly-tipped tyres, and unless the actual incident was witnessed, it was almost impossible to find out where they were from. However, the Council was working with the police on the matter.

Councillor McCartney expressed his frustration at the lack of prosecutions and emphasised the impact of the crime on local communities and the countryside.

The Lead Executive Member made the point that the amount of general fly-tipping in the district had reduced, and that several fixed penalty notices had been given out.

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.

In response to queries regarding the potential creation of a combined authority of York and North Yorkshire, development of a post of a Mayor for the combined authority, and the subsequent relationship between the different tiers of local government, the Leader explained that many ideas had been discussed with other North Yorkshire Leaders and Chief Executives at a recent meeting he had attended.

Members noted that a potential structure was being drafted by North Yorkshire Chief Executives, but were sceptical as to whether a mayoral model would work in North Yorkshire. The Leader explained that he and other Leaders had agreed on the importance of suitable checks and balances on the powers of any future mayor.

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

Councillor Musgrave provided an update on the work he had recently undertaken, as outlined in his report.

A question relating to the design and layout of public spaces within new housing developments was asked, and whether there was potential for involvement of local communities and residents in the design process. Councillor Musgrave agreed that good design was essential, but that it would be difficult to change the design of schemes that had already been approved. However, he explained that Officers had been working on design matters and emphasised the importance of this being fed into the issues and options consultation for the development of the new local plan.

A query was raised relating to the permeability of new driveways, due to the potential effects of this on groundwater flooding. Councillor Musgrave explained that with regards to new developments, matters such as driveways would be controlled by condition, but that if there were issues with the resurfacing of existing driveways these should be reported to the Planning Enforcement Team. Councillor Musgrave resolved to investigate the matter further.

In response to concerns expressed around tackling climate change, Councillor Musgrave agreed that more work needed to be done and at a faster pace, including the progress of the work of the Policy Review Committee’s Low Carbon Working Group.

In relation to public open spaces created as part of new developments, some Members expressed frustration on behalf of residents who had concerns around the responsibility for such spaces, where there was sometimes no consistency of approach or transparency of management. Councillor Musgrave acknowledged Members’ concerns and confirmed that he was happy to follow these up with local Councillors.

Lastly, Councillor Musgrave assured Members that he would ask Officers to provide a response to a question regarding tree planting on roundabouts in the district.

Councillor Cliff Lunn, Executive Member for Finance and Resources

Councillor Lunn provided an update on the work he had recently undertaken, as outlined in his report.

In response to a question relating to car parking in Tadcaster and the potential impact that not charging  ...  view the full minutes text for item 67.

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 Steve Shaw-Wright, Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee

Councillor Shaw-Wright, Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, provided an update on the work of the Committee as outlined in his report.

Councillor Shaw-Wright also updated the Council on the most recent meeting held on 13 February 2020 which was themed around education, and had several attendees from North Yorkshire County Council, York and Selby Colleges and Ebor Academy Trust. The meeting had been a success and numerous issues had been discussed, including school access to Section 106 and Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) monies.

As a result of the debate at the meeting the development of a district-wide skills strategy by the Council and education partners had been suggested; the Chair urged both Executive Members and Officers to explore this idea further.

Councillor Andrew Lee, Chairman 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 inclusion of details as to how Members voted in relation to the budget item at the meeting of the committee held on 14 January 2020. The Chair explained that some Members had asked that their position on the proposed increase in Council Tax be recorded.

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 from Members.

RESOLVED:

To receive and note the reports from the Committees.

Motions Process:

• No speeches may be made after the mover has moved a proposal and explained the purpose of it until the motion has been seconded.

• When seconding a motion or amendment, a councillor may reserve their speech until later in the debate.

• Speeches must be directed to the motion under discussion or to a personal explanation or point of order. No speech may exceed five minutes without the consent of the Chairman.

• A councillor who has spoken on a motion may not speak again whilst it is the subject of debate, except:

a)    To speak once on an amendment moved by another councillor;

b)   To move a further amendment if the motion has been amended since he/she last spoke;

c)    If his/her first speech was on an amendment moved by another councillor, to speak on the main issue (whether or not the amendment on which he/she spoke was carried);

d)   In exercise of a right of reply (see Rule 15.9 of the Constitution);

e)    On a point of order (see Rule 15.12 of the Constitution); and

f)     By way of personal explanation (see Rule 15.13 of the Constitution).

• For amendments, please refer to Rule 15.6 of the Constitution.

There have been two motions submitted for consideration. These are outlined at 11.1 and 11.2 of the agenda.

It was noted that two motions had been submitted for discussion. The first motion submitted was as follows:

‘That this Full Council agrees that Selby District Council should move from an Executive Structure to a modern Committee based structure that recognises the primacy of the Full Council and in which every elected Councillor plays a full and meaningful part in the Council decision making process.

That a Working Party under the leadership of Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee, working with senior officers, is tasked with putting forward recommendations to this Full Council that enable the changes to occur as soon as possible.’

Councillor Mary McCartney proposed the motion and explained that approving the motion would ensure a fairer method of governance, rather than the current model where decisions were made by five Members.

The motion was seconded by Councillor John McCartney.

Discussion took place on the motion and comments were made by Members in support and against the motion.

In opposition to the motion, Members noted that the same motion had been considered six months ago and urged that it was not brought back again. Some Members stated that approving the motion would mean the Council returning to an antiquated committee system, causing Council business to take longer and decisions being taken in an ineffective way; slower decision making would hinder the progress of the Council.

In support of the motion, Members argued that the current system created two ‘classes[‘ of Councillor. As a result, this limited the engagement of many Members in the decision-making process. It was also felt by some Councillors that the powers of the Scrutiny Committee were too limited in affording proper examination of the work of the Executive.

A vote was taken on the motion, with 16 against, 14 in favour and 1 abstention. The motion was therefore rejected.

RESOLVED:

                        To refuse the above motion. 

The second motion submitted was as follows:

“Background

A new definition of anti-Semitism was adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) in Bucharest in 2016 - ‘Anti-Semitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-Semitism are directed towards Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, towards Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.’

The UK Government announced on December 11^th, 2016 that it would sign up to the internationally recognised IHRA guidelines. Over 100 councils across the UK have adopted the definition.

Proposal

The Leader proposes the following motion:

That Council notes:

The new definition of anti-Semitism is an important tool for public bodies to understand how anti-Semitism manifests itself as it gives examples of the kind of behaviours which can constitute anti-Semitism.

Adopting the new definition will:

·         Demonstrate the Council’s commitment to ensuring everyone in the District is treated with the respect they deserve;

·         Make it clear that hatred of any kind, including anti-Semitism or discrimination against people for their beliefs has no place in our communities;

·         Support the Council’s obligations under the Equality  ...  view the full minutes text for item 69.

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 2020/21.

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 2020-21.

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 2.6 and 2.12 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 2020-21.

To consider a report which presents Executive’s proposed revenue budget; capital programmes and proposals for the Programme for Growth for 2020/21 to 2022/23.

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.

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 2020-21 to 2022/23. The proposed budget also set out recommendations for formal Council Tax setting.

The key elements of the presentation were as follows:

·           A Band D Council Tax increase of £5 was proposed for 2020/21 which was in accordance with the approved Medium Term Financial Strategy.

·           The 2020/21 budgets showed a forecasted balanced budget, after taking into account planned savings and reserve transfers.

·           In 2020/21 it was proposed that £10.46m be transferred to the Special Projects Reserve to support delivery of the new Council Plan objectives. In accordance with the approved Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS), the allocation of these receipts would be subject to confirmation as part of the next MTFS refresh and budget for 2021/22 although indicatively, it was planned that these would be allocated to the Programme for Growth.

·           The Medium Term Financial Plan (3 year budget) showed there was an underlying gap between core spending and current assumed core funding as a result of New Homes Bonus being phased out, and the renewable energy business rates windfalls ceasing. Beyond 2020/21 the Council awaited the outcome of the Government’s Fair Funding Review, further consultation on the future of New Homes Bonus and reform of the Business Rates Retention System, to confirm the need for and level of future savings.

·           Whilst there was capacity in reserves to smooth the impact of savings and manage risk, the on-going use of reserves to support the revenue budget was not a long term sustainable solution, and therefore achievement of efficiency savings and additional income generation remained crucial as plans for Business Rates and Council Tax growth were brought to fruition.

·           The proposed budget also included recurring revenue budget growth proposals along with Capital Programme proposals for the General Fund and Housing Revenue Account (HRA), which were funded from reserves, external funding and borrowing, along with outline proposals for an extended Programme for Growth.

·           The draft budget proposals had been subject to public consultation, scrutiny by the Policy Review Committee and briefings for all Councillors. The results of the consultation along with proposed officer responses were appended to the report as were the minutes of Policy Review Committee.

Members debated the budget proposals before them, with concerns being raised around the volume of new homes being built that did not have the necessary associated infrastructure to support them.

Amendments to the recommendations in the budget report were proposed and seconded. Members discussed the amendments, some expressing their support for it as it gave more Councillors an influence on how money was being spent at the Council. The importance of helping those living in the most deprived areas was emphasised.

Other Members disagreed and felt strongly that the proposals in the amendment would increase bureaucracy and the demand on Officer time.

Some Councillors agreed with the recommendation in the budget to increase the council tax by £5  ...  view the full minutes text for item 71.

To consider a report which seeks approval of the Council’s Pay Policy Statement 2020/21 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 2020-21 in accordance with section 38 of the Localism Act 2011.

It was noted this report had to be produced each year.

RESOLVED:

                        To approve the Pay Policy Statement for 2020-21.

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 a report which sets out the reasons for the urgent decision for additional funding to complete the distribution of wheeled bins for recycling to all domestic properties in the District.

The Chief Executive explained to Members the reasons for the urgent decision for additional funding to complete the distribution of wheeled bins for recycling to all domestic properties in the district.

A report to Council on 17 September 2019 had recommended the purchase and distribution of 74,400 wheeled bins at an estimated cost of £1.35 million, including an estimated cost of distributing the bins. The procurement exercises for the procurement of bins and the distribution had resulted in a revised budget requirement of £1.42 million to complete the distribution of bins to all domestic properties, for service commencement at the start of April 2020 as planned.

Members queried how and why the estimated cost had been different from the original figures. The Chief Executive explained that the costs had originally been worked out on a basis of per household, not per bin, which had caused the discrepancy.

RESOLVED:

To note the urgent decision of the Chief Executive after consultation with the Chairmen of the Scrutiny and Policy Review Committees and previously reported to the Executive meeting on 5 February 2020. The increase in the capital programme for this scheme was for £74,725 from an original budget of £1.35 million to £1.42 million.

REASON FOR DECISION:

Due to the urgent nature of the decision it had not been included on the Forward Plan; in accordance with Rule 5.6 (Special Urgency) the Chief Executive has obtained the agreement of the Chairs of the Scrutiny Committee and Policy Review Committees that the decision may reasonably be regarded as urgent.

To consider a report which outlines the Calendar of Meetings for 2020/21.

Councillor Crane, Leader of the Council presented the report which asked Council to consider and approve the attached Calendar of Meetings for 2020-21.

Two amendments to the calendar were proposed and seconded; these were to move the date of Annual Council in May 2020 and Budget Council in February 2021.

It was subsequently agreed that Annual Council in May 2020 would be held on Tuesday 19 May 2020, and that Budget Council in February 2021 would be held on Thursday 18 February 2021.

RESOLVED:

To approve the Calendar of Meetings for 2020-21, subject to the amendments the Council dates set out above.

REASON FOR DECISION:

To enable the proper functioning of the Council in the 2020-21 municipal year.

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 2020/21, Capital Strategy 2020/21 and Prudential Indicators 2020/21 as required by the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government and CIPFA (as updated 2017).  A review of CIPFA’s Commercial Property Investment Guidance (issued in autumn 2019) has also been undertaken.

The capital expenditure plans for the next three years, along with re-profiled budgets carried forward from 2019/20 totalled £42m, 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 remained at £90m to enable prudent assessment of the Council’s borrowing needs over the year.

Cash balances were expected to remain relatively high over the three-year period, whilst Programme for Growth projects were still in progress, and 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.

There were no comments from Members on the report.

RESOLVED:

i)          That the Operational Borrowing Limit for 2020/21 be set at £85m.

ii)        That the Authorised Borrowing Limit for 2020/21 be set at £90m

iii)       To delegate authority to the Chief Finance Officer to effect movement within the agreed authorised boundary limits for long-term borrowing for 2020/21 onwards.

iv)       To delegate authority to the Chief Finance Officer to effect movement within the agreed operational boundary limits for long-term borrowing for 2020/21 onwards.

v)        To approve the treasury management strategy statement 2020/21.

vi)       To approve the minimum revenue provision policy statement for 2020/21.

vii)     To approve the treasury management investment strategy for 2020/21.

viii)    To approve the prudential indicators for 2020/21 which reflected the capital expenditure plans which were affordable, prudent and sustainable.

ix)       To approve the Capital Strategy for 2020/21.

REASON FOR DECISION:

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

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.

There was no urgent action.