Agenda and draft minutes

Venue: Microsoft Teams - Remote

Contact: Palbinder Mann  Email: pmann@selby.gov.uk or 01757 292207

Note: Extraordinary Meeting 

Media

Items
No. Item

20.

Apologies for Absence

To receive apologies for absence.

Minutes:

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Ellie Jordan. The Council sent congratulations on the birth of her baby daughter.

21.

Disclosures of Interest

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.

Minutes:

The Monitoring Officer confirmed that all Members had been granted a dispensation in respect of the disclosable pecuniary interests Members had declared to her.

 

The Chief Executive stated that  as well as being appointed by Members as the Chief Executive at Selby District Council, they appointed her as  Assistant Chief Executive at North Yorkshire County Council (NYCC) for one day a week. To manage the risk of any potential actual or perceived conflict, she had not been involved in the Local Government Reform submission by NYCC and had taken no part in the Management Board at NYCC since July 2020.

 

The Chief Finance Officer declared that as well as being the Chief Finance Officer for Selby District Council, she was an Assistant Director at NYCC had not been involved in the Local Government Reform submission by NYCC therefore did not have any conflict of interest.

 

Councillor Nichols declared that she was an employee of NYCC however had been granted a dispensation by the Monitoring Officer in respect of this disclosable pecuniary interest and so could take part in the discussion and vote in the meeting.

 

22.

Local Government Reform in York and North Yorkshire pdf icon PDF 358 KB

To consider a report which presents the York and North Yorkshire Local Government Reorganisation Case for Change (“the Case for Change”).

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Chief Executive introduced the report which presented the York and North Yorkshire Local Government Reorganisation Case for Change.

 

The Chief Executive explained that the proposal has been a collaboration between the seven District Councils in the area alongside KPMG who had been commissioned by the authorities to write the report. Council was informed that following consideration of a number of different options, the District Councils had settled on the idea of an east/west model outlined in the report.

 

The Leader of the Council explained that the Government had wanted Local Government reform to achieve devolution in the area. Council was informed there had not been any clarity from the Government regarding the requirement for a maximum or minimum population under a proposal with different figures being quoted.

 

Members discussed the report and the following comments were made during debate:

 

·       Although some Members were not supportive of the District Councils submission, they felt both proposals should be submitted to the Government to allow them to have options when making a decision.

 

·       Some Members felt there should not be any change to the local government structure in the area however reluctantly would support the submission so that all possible options were considered by the Government.

 

·       Some Parish Councils had highlighted that the NYCC proposal could affect local level decision making. For example, the NYCC proposal would include one local plan for the whole area which could make it difficult to take into account local planning issues.

 

·       The District Councils’ submission had considered all possible options whereas the NYCC proposal had only considered one option in detail and there had been no consideration to the inclusion of York in their proposal, which was more central to the area than Northallerton.

 

·       Some concern was raised that this was the wrong time to undertake such a review with issues such as the Covid-19 pandemic still affecting all local authorities. It was felt that the process must be not be undertaken carelessly and must be given serious consideration despite the difficult positions local authorities were in.

 

·       One Member stated that  consideration should have been given to splitting Selby to it’s nearest authorities such as those in West and South Yorkshire.

 

·       Some Members stated that the NYCC proposal was unacceptable due to the size of the possible authority. It was queried how York would fill their developments for housing due to issues with land in their area.

 

·       One Member said that the NYCC proposal should be favoured due to it already having services such as children’s and adult social care already set up and running. If the District Councils submission was accepted, these services would need to be set up from the beginning again.

 

·       Concern was raised that any proposal accepted would be a cost cutting exercise by the Government.

 

·       NYCC already had local services set up in Selby which would be a benefit if their proposal was accepted.

 

·       There could be a reduction of Councillors in the NYCC proposal which would impact local areas detrimentally.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22.