Agenda item

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 of the Council’s services were included in the carbon capture work. Significant progress had been made in the first quarter of 2021, with detailed proposals to be brought forward for Members’ consideration soon. It was key that costs did not spiral out of control and that the work was not rushed; the goal was still for the Council to be carbon neutral by 2030.

 

A query was raised around the current vacancies in the Planning Department, which the Deputy Leader explained was as a result of the planning service review through which the Council was ensuring that its Development Management and Planning Policy Teams were fit for purpose. Good progress was being made recruiting to the roles, with two PPU vacancies having been interviewed for and offered to candidates. The roles in the Development Management and Planning Policy Teams had also been shortlisted and interviews would be forthcoming.

 

Another question was asked in relation to the Low Carbon Action Plan, specifically as to why recruitment for the Low Carbon Officer was taking place when the action plan had not yet been signed off by the Executive. The Deputy Leader explained that decisions related to recruitment were within the remit of Officers but confirmed that good progress was being made with the low carbon work and that resources would be required to take it further forward.

 

Members thanked Planning Officers for their continued work on the Local Plan and queried whether responses had been received from the people of the Tadcaster area, who were hopeful of the proposals in the plan. The Deputy Leader had been pleased to attend a meeting of Tadcaster Town Council in the previous week, and explained that as the consultation was still ongoing, he was unable to give any detail around where responses had come from and how many. There were some transformative plans being put forward for the future of Tadcaster in both the Local Plan and the Places and Movement Study, both of which would hopefully get a lot of engagement from local people.

 

A further question was raised around the recruitment of the Low Carbon Officer, the role’s reporting line and whether this would be submitted for consideration to the Low Carbon Working Group and the Council. The Deputy Leader explained that the reporting line for the role would be through the Officer management structure. In terms of its political placement, the role would come under his portfolio, with updates being reported through him as Lead Executive Member, the Low Carbon Working Group, the Executive and also full Council as necessary; the precise arrangements would be clarified in due course. It was noted that the Low Carbon Working Group had asked that it be able to continue its work which had been undertaken on a cross party basis; the Deputy Leader was pleased that this had been requested and looked forward to working with them in the future.

 

The matter of the new SEND school in Osgodby was raised, in particular its absence from the Local Plan which, according to Officers, was due to the proposals having been submitted to the Department for Education and the subsequent wait for a planning application being submitted to the Council. Members asked for confirmation that the site would remain marked for the school which was sorely needed in the local area. The Deputy Leader stated that he had also noticed its absence from the submission and had contacted North Yorkshire County Council himself to check. He was sure that representations for the use of that site, including those from the County Council, would now come forward. Any applications for the site would be subject to consideration by Planning Committee. Those Members of the Council who served on Planning Committee would need to keep an open mind about the scheme.

 

Concerns were raised by some Members about the lack of Local Plan leaflet delivery in some areas of the district, as well as difficulty accessing the information online and the volume and complicated nature of the documentation. The Deputy Leader confirmed that a leaflet had been sent out to over 41,000 properties across the area, but that this was only one way in which engagement with local people had been undertaken by the Council. The development of the Local Plan was a long and legal process, and there had been some positive feedback on the published information; the content of it had been made as simple and straight forward as possible. The Planning Policy Team were also available to speak to residents should they so wish.

 

Councillor C Lunn, Lead Executive Member for Finance and Resources

 

The Lead Executive Member presented his update on the work he had recently undertaken, as outlined in his report and added that there had been a number of queries around business grants that the Council had administered to local businesses during the coronavirus pandemic. Members noted that this was a very complex issue, and that the Council had been issued with nine different grant schemes since the first lockdown, some of which had included policy set by central government, others which the Council itself had needed to develop. The Policy Review Committee, at its forthcoming meeting on 16 March 2021, would be considering and scrutinising business grants in detail; the Lead Executive Member confirmed that he would be in attendance at the meeting.

 

A question was asked if more could be done to support the licensed trades; it was explained that the Council’s business support grants for some licensed premises to pay were getting passed on to the breweries. The Lead Executive Member explained that when the grants were issued to the Council by the government, instructions were given alongside them, which had to be followed. Some of the instructions were in place to avoid fraudulent applications. The government were trying to ensure that grants were issued to any businesses that had ‘fallen through the net’, but Officers had to operate the process in the precise way the government had instructed them to.

 

Lastly, the Lead Executive Member echoed Members’ thanks to the Officers who had worked so hard on the administration and management of business grants during the pandemic.

 

Councillor D Buckle, Lead Executive Member for Communities and Economic Development

 

The Lead Executive Member presented his update on the work he had recently undertaken, as outlined in his report and added that the upgrades to electric vehicle charging points and ticket machines in the Council’s car parks would take place in mid-March 2021. Members noted that the machines would be taking both card and coin payments.

 

In relation to the Transforming Cities Fund for the Selby Station Gateway, the Lead Executive Member explained that there would shortly be a media release about the project, including a presentation for Ward Members showing the proposed plans. All Members of the Council would receive a copy of the plans before they were made public; the Council were encouraged to engage with as many people and organisations as possible about the plans to ensure good levels of feedback.

 

A question was raised regarding the future of the Natwest Bank in Tadcaster, which seemed to have damaged and potentially dangerous masonry. The Lead Executive Member expressed his frustration at the state of the building and had raised it with Officers, who had advised that some ‘shop wrap’ could be installed on the windows to make it look more presentable than the boarding. There had previously been two interested parties who had indicated they wished to develop it into a retail unit; unfortunately, due to the pandemic, both potential deals had fallen through. However, with the development of the Local Plan it was clear that the bank was a key asset for Tadcaster and should be reassessed by the Council for other uses.

 

A second query was raised regarding a live planning application; Officers advised that it was inappropriate for discussion at full Council.

 

Firstly, Members queried if rural areas were going to be considered as part of the Places and Movement Study and not just larger settlements such as Selby, Tadcaster and Sherburn, particularly in relation to highways infrastructure. Secondly, with regards to economic development, the potential move of Clipper Logistics from Olympia Park was questioned. Lastly, numerous enquiries had been received around economic development and potential employment land in relation to the Local Plan; the importance of planning for economic growth in the district was emphasised and as such it was queried whether the current allowances in the Local Plan were sufficient.

 

The Lead Executive Member confirmed that the A63 roundabout was marked for an upgrade due to the amount of housing development and industrial upgrades that were due in the surrounding areas. Some CIL money that had been generated as a result of a site in Sherburn had meant that traffic lights in the area were upgraded to facilitate better traffic flow. Members were pleased to note that the Places and Movement Study would be beneficial for the whole of Selby district.

 

It was explained to the Council that as Clipper Logistics did a large amount of online business, they would be taking on an additional site in Sherburn, resulting in the biggest deal of its kind in the country so far this year, with the creation of approximately 1,000 additional jobs. Despite the pandemic, the Council was receiving some excellent enquiries about the area from a number of businesses. Several sites around the district were very promising with the potential for well paid, good quality jobs in the years to come. The Local Plan consultation proposed 110ha of employment land, and there were numerous policies to support such development set out in it.

 

A further question was submitted regarding works undertaken between Riccall and York by Sustrans; Members asked what further assistance could be provided for routes between Selby and York.

 

The Lead Executive Member emphasised the importance of cycling and walking routes in the district. There was the potential for funding from the Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) to do some improvement works, but further detailed information would need to be provided to Members after the meeting.

 

Members thanked the Lead Executive Member for the Council’s work in supporting job opportunities in the Sherburn area but expressed concern that around 90% of the employment on the industrial estate fell within the ‘low pay/no pay’ category, and did not offer life-time full employment or career progression. As such, given the amount of building and development planned for Sherburn, it was queried what else the Council could do to promote other sectors coming to Sherburn.

 

The Lead Executive Member acknowledged that a few years ago it had been noted that around 90% of people working in Sherburn were imported from outside of the area. As a result, the Council was now more particular, especially on Sherburn 2, about employers and businesses coming into the district. The Officer team were more aware of the situation and were working hard with landowners to ensure that the area was attracting top paid companies. There was also evidence that the figure of 90% had come down, and that despite the current pandemic there were plenty of jobs available on the industrial estates.

 

A question was asked regarding some of the land near the footbridge over the river in Selby, and if it could be made into recreational land for the people of the town. The Lead Executive Member suggested that the matter be raised at the Member briefing the following day at which the appropriate Officers would be present to consider it. There was an enhancement scheme planned for both sides of the river that the footbridge would cross.

 

Councillor C Pearson, Lead Executive Member for Housing, Health and Culture

 

The Lead Executive Member presented his update on the work he had recently undertaken, as outlined in his report.

 

A question regarding housing repairs was asked, specifically around waiting times for such works to be undertaken for council housing tenants. The Lead Executive Member confirmed that some members of the Housing Team had been supporting people in the community during the pandemic. Repairs were being assessed on a basis of urgency and worked through steadily, but there was a lengthy list of works required. The Council would do all it could to get round to all the repairs as soon as possible.

 

A second question was asked relating to the use of small vehicles on some of the back lanes and smaller roads in Selby, such as Darcy Road, for waste collection, and the details of decisions relating to this. An initial response had been received by the questioner confirming that it was not the intention to revert back to collecting from the rear of properties, but it seemed a decision had been taken without consulting Ward Members.

 

The Lead Executive Member explained that the small vehicles had been purchased to access difficult to reach areas but not specifically for use on back lanes. However, the Council did provide assisted collections if residents needed help and would also return the bins to these same locations. The Lead Executive Member confirmed that further clarification and information would be requested from Officers and a written reply forwarded to Members for information.

 

Members also commented on an HMO (Houses in Multiple Occupation), specifically some issues around a couple of properties on Brook Street in Selby, and how the conditions that some people were living in were worrying.

 

Further concerns were raised again around housing repairs in the district, which were not being undertaken in a timely manner. There had been an example some Members had seen via the local MP’s office of a woman fleeing domestic violence, who had initially been turned down for a repair; it was only through the intervention of the MP that the repairs were completed. Members asked who had set the repairs policy and why they had been set as they had and requested that the matter be investigated urgently by the Lead Executive Member and Officers.

 

The Lead Executive Member confirmed that he would take up this matter and come back to Members on it. It was noted that the Council was steadily making progress with housing repairs, but that some were being prioritised and assessed by urgency.

 

A query was submitted regarding tree planting in the district, particularly how many trees had been planted in the last year by the Council.

 

The Lead Executive Member was unsure of the exact figure and would need to make enquiries on the matter but would come back to Members with the information when he had received it.

 

Members asked further questions around fixed penalties, specifically relating to how they were being paid, the fixed limit for court prosecutions, the harsher fines and sentencing for large amounts of fly tipping, the time frames and criteria for housing repairs, and lastly the tracking of the disposal of tyres for all garages in the district.

 

The Lead Executive Member confirmed that every fixed penalty had been paid in full. With regards to fly tipping prosecutions, Members noted that the courts had a backlog of cases at present and as such were trying not to deal with more minor claims. However, if the amount fly tipped was very large the Council would take the offender to court, but it could take some time for it to be heard. When it came to housing repairs, the timescales were 25 days for a minor repair, 5 days for urgent and 1 day for emergency; not every repair could be resolved instantly. Members were given examples of what qualified as an emergency or urgent repair.

 

A number of Members indicated that there were some serious concerns around housing repairs and as such, that the matter should be referred to the Scrutiny Committee for urgent consideration at its next meeting in March 2021. This was proposed, seconded and agreed by the Council.

 

RESOLVED:

1.    To receive and note the reports from the Executive.

 

2.    To refer the matter of housing repairs to Scrutiny Committee for consideration.