Scarborough and Whitby Area Committee
Minutes of the meeting held on Friday, 21 March 2025 commencing at 10.00 am.
Councillor Liz Colling in the Chair plus Councillors Janet Jefferson, Derek Bastiman, Eric Broadbent, David Chance, David Jeffels, Rich Maw, Clive Pearson, Tony Randerson, John Ritchie, Subash Sharma, Neil Swannick, Roberta Swiers and Phil Trumper.
In attendance: Councillor George Jabbour.
Officers present: St John Harris, Jon Holden, Dr Gill Kelly (remote), Amanda Newbold (remote), Paul Romans, Joe Russell, Dr Victoria Turner (remote), and Louise Wilson
Other Attendees: James Farrar (Chief Executive, York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority) and Alison Hume MP
|
Copies of all documents considered are in the Minute Book
|
|
119 |
Apologies for Absence
Councillor Heather Phillips.
|
|
120 |
Minutes of the Meeting held on 29 November 2024
Resolved
That the Minutes of the meeting held on 29 November 2024, having been printed and circulated, be taken as read and confirmed and signed by the Chair as a correct record.
|
|
121 |
Declarations of Interest
Councillors Neil Swannick and Roberta Swiers each declared an interest in Minute item 125 and the public questions concerning Scarborough West Pier since they were members of the Strategic Planning Committee which would be considering this matter again in due course.
Councillor Phil Trumper declared an interest in Minute item 128 Schools update since he was a governor of Whitby School.
|
|
122 |
Feedback from previous meetings - Chair's report
The Chair provided the following updates: Whitby Harbour accounts The Corporate Director Environment, Karl Battersby had advised that the council was disappointed by the court’s decision in respect of the council’s use of revenue from harbour land which had taken many months to be handed down. The council was reviewing the decision in detail and considering next steps. The decision would have no impact on the council’s goal to promote a thriving harbour in Whitby and invest in its future. The decision would not have an impact on the delivery of the Whitby Maritime Hub. Use of Cinder Track by children to walk to Whitby School The Chair reminded members that the committee previously had expressed safety concerns around children using the poorly lit Cinder Track to walk to Whitby School. However, the school had just produced a Transport Plan handed to her at the meeting which had collected a significant amount of data in this respect. She would arrange for the Transport Plan to be circulated to the committee, so members’ views could be gauged on whether any further action was required. York and Scarborough Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust – hospital travel and attendance data The NHS Hospital Foundation Trust delivered a very helpful workshop for members of the committee examining data on local missed appointments by hospital, specialty, location and so on. It became evident that the areas with the highest incidence of patients with missed appointments were in our most deprived divisions raising concerns that health conditions were not being treated. Further work would be done with the Trust to try and understand this matter better. Scarborough Cross-Council Task Force A fuller update on the work of the Task Force and the impact of the Public Space Protection Order would be provided to the next committee meeting on 6 June. Finally, the Chair encouraged people to volunteer for a Sprucing up Scarborough activity on 28 and 29 March in the town centre and to vote online for Steve Johnson, Operations Manager at Scarborough North Bay Railway and a finalist for Visit England's Tourism Superstar 2025 competition.
|
|
123 |
Presentation by James Farrar, Chief Executive of York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority
Considered a presentation by James Farrar, Chief Executive of York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority on the devolution deal, the step change it presented in championing the needs of the region at a national level and in delivering investment through a collaborative approach with councils, businesses and other stakeholders, and how this collaborative approach would bring opportunities for the coast. The Combined Authority was a rural trailblazer given its expanse, diversity and geography but the important thing was that by understanding these diverse needs, all communities should benefit, although not necessarily at the same time nor in the same way. Mr Farrar shared details of the £540m Mayoral Investment Fund across the different areas of housing, skills, net zero, transport and business, the £30m invested to date including the boat hoist in Scarborough as a priority project, details of the £40m of new opportunities, adding that investment should be owned and driven locally with a plan for every town. He demonstrated how through its links to central government the Combined Authority lobbied for local priorities at a national level, and how the Combined Authority showed strategic leadership in areas such as transport through commissioning a strategic review of transport and in housing by launching a Strategic Place Partnership with Homes England. The CA had also finalised an Innovation Plan, commissioned a review into the future of farming, built the case for an AI Growth Zone and sent a Comprehensive Spending Review submission to Government in order to maximise future funding to the region. A ten year Growth Plan would be finalised in the coming weeks which identified where the region had competitive advantage. These were in five sectors of national significance including clean energy and the offshore wind sector. Turning to the questions pre-submitted by the committee regarding how the local area would benefit from the Mayoral Investment Fund, future funding streams, Combined Authority support for the offshore wind sector, and the potential for improved rail connectivity between Scarborough and UK cities, Mr Farrar advised that: · The CA would be inviting funding proposals from NYC supported by local communities, citing the examples of village halls in the area which had recently benefitted from the community buildings fund. · Future funding opportunities included the £10m fund to get people back into work, bus service improvements, the new Local Growth Plan, bigger visitor events on the coast, but these opportunities depended on Scarborough and Whitby having a clear plan and vision which enjoyed widespread support. · Clean energy had been identified as a key priority for the region where the CA was looking to benefit from the Growth Settlement. The local area needed to have identified investible propositions to attract this funding. · The CA continued to push for two trains per hour between Scarborough and York, and since York was the best connected city in the north of England, this would facilitate improved connections with other destinations. The CA’s direct relationship with Great British Railways would assist in this effort.
Following this introduction, the issues raised by elected members included: · Local investment by Homes England · CA support for Esk Valley Railway · Funding for the Scarborough Harbour boat hoist. This had been secured but any additional funding for Scarborough Harbour would require an application to the CA · The importance of the CA’s working relationship with NYC and the area committees to agree priorities and to develop plans which were owned by local people · The future sustainability of the local offshore wind sector. This required a business-led approach. · The CA’s strategic review of bus services in the region to identify the best model for bus service delivery · How to expand the Mayoral Investment Fund in the same manner as the Tees Valley · How businesses go about applying for high street funding to the CA with the support of NYC
Following members’ questions, Mr Farrar agreed to: · Investigate further the barriers to Homes England investment in Eastfield · To provide further details of the CA’s support for the Esk Valley Railway · Investigate how the application process for local businesses to secure high street funding could be made clearer
The Chair thanked Mr Farrar for his attendance and his responses to members’ questions.
Resolved that the presentation be received.
|
|
124 |
Attendance of MP Alison Hume
Ms Hume provided an overview to the committee of some of her areas of work, concerns and priorities. She was pleased to be able to exercise her convening power for the benefit of her constituents, citing the recent meeting involving constituents at Portcullis House about longstanding problems with non-functioning smart meters, and public meetings held locally in respect of heather burning, consultation on the NHS Ten Year Plan, and changes to the council’s Home to School Travel policy. Ms Hume was continuing to hold regular advice surgeries covering issues such as planning, poor housing and education, and had attended many businesses and schools including Boulby Mine and Scalby School. She was Co-Chair of APPG on Coastal Communities and was using this position to lobby for a dedicated Minister of Coastal Communities given the particular challenges faced by the coast. Ms Hume welcomed the £20m Government investment in Scarborough as part of the new Plan for Neighbourhoods, and looked forward to refreshing the Town Deal Board on which she sat. She welcomed too the accelerator housing status awarded to Cayton South which presented its own challenges and opportunities. Ms Hume estimated that she spent some 60% of her time in lobbying for investment in the constituency. Other areas of work in which she was involved included inshore fisheries, disability rights and the safety and security of politicians. Following this introduction, the issues raised by elected members included:
The Chair thanked Alison Hume MP for her attendance and her responses to members’ questions.
|
|
125 |
Public Participation
There were six public questions and statements submitted to the committee. Question 2 was considered at Minute 128 – Schools update report. All members of the public were in attendance to put their questions except Matthew White. Responses are also set out below. Public questions and statements
Can the Chair give me the fullest assurance that sufficient space is to be created for the safe and efficient operation of a boat hoist on West Pier? Reply At this time, we cannot give that assurance. The space required for the boat hoist was to be created by the demolition of two buildings which was included in the planning application for the West Pier Regeneration Project. At its meeting on 30 January 2025 the Strategic Planning Committee resolved to defer the application pending receipt of further information. In the absence of a planning approval required to create the space we cannot give any assurance that the space will be provided. Supplementary question Mr Roberts then sought assurance from the Portfolio Holder, Councillor Mark Crane that the funding would be secured to deliver the boat hoist to ensure the future sustainability of Scarborough Harbour. The Chair reminded Mr Roberts of the different funding sources for the boat hoist including York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority and of the council’s intent to deliver the scheme but would arrange for a more detailed response from the Portfolio Holder.
The report does not fulfil its purpose “to inform Members of the local educational landscape, educational achievement and the financial challenges in the Scarborough and Whitby committee area” in sufficient detail. We would urge Members to reject the report as it stands and ask for a more detailed report, particularly in relation to the challenges faced in Whitby. The report provides little commentary or analysis of the issues and challenges schools in our area are facing and for Whitby in particular, it is totally silent on the immediate issues in the recently reorganised secondary school.
The report provides only aggregated data, raises significant issues about schools in key areas, but fails to provide data at the individual school level or indicate what support schools are receiving from the local authority (if they are maintained schools) to overcome the issues raised.
From the data we learn that:
Issues of concern in Whitby secondary education The secondary surplus capacity figures are unclear since the table still includes Eskdale School and the figures have not been adjusted to reflect the closure of Eskdale school. The report states that:
“Although this process has reduced the surplus in secondary places in the Whitby area it has maintained a sufficiency of places to meet current and projected demand”.
This is misleading as the capacity of Caedmon (now Whitby School) in 2024 was 1530 and it is likely that there is, and will continue to be, a surplus of around 400 places (25%+) across the two sites rising to around 500 (33%) as pupil numbers continue to fall.
NYC’s Transport from Home to School policy, adopted in September 2024, where families are asked to send their children to the nearest secondary school even if that is ‘out of county’, may mean that students from Cowbar, Staithes and Hinderwell attend Freeborough; students from Danby, Castleton, Commondale and Kildale may attend schools in Guisborough or Stokesley. This policy may be responsible for further depopulating the secondary school in Whitby.
The latest Ofsted report on Whitby School judged it to require improvement. It has had a succession of temporary head teachers and there is still no consultation with parents on it becoming an academy. The future remains uncertain. This is an issue of huge importance to Whitby. Parents have no other choice of school.
We do not believe that the site options appraisal process addressed or considered the building of a new school on one site, or the use of the capital receipt from the disposal of Eskdale School as the key driver for school improvement. The Eskdale site, near a new build housing site, remains empty and part boarded up.
The market value of the school sites was not obtained or considered in the decision making for the amalgamation proposal and, hence, the educational objectives were very much constrained. We believe that it is a barrier to embedding school improvement and, crucially, without any reinvestment of the capital receipt the school will continue as a split site with all the educational and financial downsides of that.
We would urge councillors to reject the Schools Update Report and to:
Reply The Chair commented that the Schools Update Report could not be rejected by the committee but could serve as a launchpad for further investigations by the committee which may influence the committee’s work programme. Further, local division councillors were encouraged to contact the Children and Young People’s Service should they require further detail about educational attainment in their local schools. Officers then added that the schools report is designed to provide members in the area with an overview of key, high level matters pertinent to schools in the committee area. Information about individual school performance is already published online on the DfE performance tables website, but the report today aims to aggregate this information at area committee level and allow comparisons to national and county performance. The report represents the situation as it was on 31 August 2024. This is so that we can make year on year comparisons at the turn of each academic year and so that all six Area Committee reports reflect the same point in time, regardless of when the meetings take place. In August 2024, the secondary school changes were still taking place in Whitby and so the report reflects the data held at the time. Whitby School surplus capacity has since reduced, now there is just a single school operating on two sites. All LA schools are supported by the LA, and this is documented and discussed in detailed presentations to the Children and Families Overview and Scrutiny Committee. Mr McGovern’s concerns relating to Whitby school are noted. The responsibility for the running of the school remains with the governing board. Councillors can be assured that LA officers continue to work with the board to ensure that education standards are monitored, and plans are made to improve outcomes as the two school communities come together. The decision to amalgamate the schools was made following a statutory process that concluded in an Executive decision on 20 June 2023. Separate decisions about the future of the former Eskdale school site have not yet been made. Comments about the Home to School Travel Policy have been covered in earlier responses. As a governor of Whitby School, Councillor Trumper confirmed that the school was investigating the option of academisation. Supplementary question Mr McGovern urged the committee and officers to expedite the disposal of the Eskdale School site because the resulting capital receipt could serve to improve the quality of education provision in Whitby, and further it was unacceptable that the site had been left vacant and susceptible to vandalism now two years after the statutory public consultation. Mr Jon Holden, Strategic Planning Manager responded that it was a long established principle that the statutory decision making process to close a school as an entity was entirely separate to the decision making process to close the building and to determine the building’s future. It was important that consideration of the building’s future use did not influence the separate decision to close a school as an entity. While the future use of the Eskdale site remained to be determined, steps had been taken to secure the site. Security was regularly reviewed and if found to be insufficient to protect the site from vandalism, then the security would be enhanced.
Thank you for the opportunity allowing me to highlight an issue that I believe is cause for significant concern. As you are all now aware, Scalby School is to move to a newly built facility on the former site of Lower Graham School off Lady Edith’s Avenue. Pupils and staff at Scalby deserve to learn and work in a high-quality environment, and I appreciate the effort and planning that has gone into this new development. I know these proposals will be welcomed by many, including myself. However, I am concerned that the current plans do not take into account the effect on my business that currently operates from the gymnasium and sports pitches on the site of the new development. Hawkes Health provides sporting opportunities for hundreds of young people from across the Scarborough, Whitby, and Ryedale area. Primarily, we offer football coaching courses, but we also offer cricket, netball, badminton, as well as a variety of other sporting opportunities for young people of all ages. At a time when obesity and childhood inactivity are contributing to the enormous pressure on our NHS, it is absolutely vital that young people are given every opportunity to engage in sporting activities. The physical and mental health benefits of taking part in sporting activities are well known to you all. At a recent meeting of NYC Executive, Gary Fielding said NYC would assist me in trying to find alternative facilities allowing me to continue to provide this much-needed provision. I am hoping this committee will offer your support by recognising the crucial role sporting activity plays in promoting good physical and mental health of residents and by asking NYC executive members to ensure my business is not put at risk as a result of Scalby School moving to this site. Together, we can ensure that young people continue to have access to essential sporting opportunities. By supporting Hawkes Health, the new site can become a hub for community sports and wellness. I am eager to work with NYC Executive members to find a solution that benefits everyone. I kindly ask the committee to support finding alternative facilities for Hawkes Health. In summary, I seek your support to ensure Hawkes Health can continue its vital work. Thank you for your consideration, and I look forward to your support. Reply Many thanks for your question in relation to the proposed relocation of Scalby School to the former Lower Graham School site and raising how this will affect your business that is based on the site. We are unable to go into the detail of any commercial agreement in this public forum, but NYC officers will continue to work with you to try to identify alternative sites, where possible. We will also arrange for our Leisure Service to contact you to discuss the Leisure Strategy for the Scarborough area. At this time, the timescales associated with the school relocation are not yet confirmed, but officers will continue to liaise with you in relation to the current agreement. The Chair added that a review of local leisure provision was a potential topic for the area committee. Councillor Colling requested that Mr Hawkes provide the Principal Democratic Services Officer, Mr Harris with details of how many young people use his facilities on a weekly basis, and of overall usage since his facilities opened in 2017 to help inform the committee’s work.
Please explain why the NYC Executive Committee at its meeting in July 2024 considered a motion subject to approval from the DfT to appropriate land on West Pier when the Council has consistently maintained this land is in its ownership since at least 2007 as minuted by the former SBC S151 officer? Reply The Council does own the freehold of the land at West Pier. Appropriation relates to use, not ownership. Supplementary question Mr Corrigan then referred to a Pre-Action Protocol Letter before Claim for Judicial Review issued by the company who owns his fishing vessel which challenged that Executive decision on the basis that it was unlawful. He understood that the Executive decision had been reversed in light of the Pre-Action Protocol. He was disappointed that the public record had not been amended to reflect this development, and that members of the area committee seemed not to be aware of the original decision when it was taken nor of this development. He had asked for the correspondence concerning the Pre-Action Protocol to be circulated to the committee and urged members to attend the Executive when the matter was considered again. In reply, the Chair commented that it was not appropriate to discuss in public legal matters of this nature but she would seek further information and was sure that she and other members of the committee would attend the Executive when the matter was reconsidered.
I am a school governor on the governing board for Castleton Primary School, a small village primary school located in the Upper Esk Valley. I am also a parent of a child who attends that school and the parent of a child who is in Year 8 at Whitby School There has been a lot of coverage and discussion in recent months around the change to the council’s School Transport policy - much of which has been driven by proactive, concerned residents in other areas of the county such as Richmond who have very clearly highlighted the detrimental impact of the policy change on their areas.
I am unsure, however, whether everyone here today is fully aware of the impact that this is also having and will have on our area - specifically Whitby and the surrounding villages which has led me to issuing a statement today. Schools in the Esk Valley are considered to be ‘feeder’ schools for secondary education in Whitby and the children of Castleton and neighbouring villages such as Danby live within what has always been Whitby’s catchment area. However, the change in policy means it is now impossible to predict which secondary schools these children will now attend. At least one family living in Castleton does not have Whitby appear at all within their ‘five nearest schools’ and, for others in Castleton and Danby, the top three schools vary depending on address. In practical terms, this means that, a cohort of five children from a primary school could very well each end up getting a place at five separate secondary schools.
This presents two significant issues:
I understand that the council’s impact assessment report has identified that the change in policy would put 1 in 4 schools with under 100 students in danger of losing pupils. Can Councillors please advise whether Castleton and Danby schools have been identified as being at risk?
An almost certain impact of the policy is that Whitby School will have fewer students joining in future years as it also affects other feeder schools such as Seton in Staithes and Oakridge in Hinderwell. Much of the justification for recently moving to a single school model was to protect Whitby’s longer-term security amidst reduced projected numbers, it is therefore surely vital that Whitby School receives every student possible. I imagine that Whitby School is going to effectively be forced into subsidising or funding transport for those affected by the policy which would require the school to divert funds from other areas of educational need. The alternative is that Whitby School watches on as budget for pupils who would previously have attended that setting is directed to other schools in other local authorities.
To those Councillors who previously voted in favour of this policy change last year, I hope I have provided some useful first-hand insight into what this actually means for the residents within your wards and I hope you will give this due consideration going forward when contributing to any further decision making.
The change in policy is damaging and detrimental to the young people, families and organisations within our local area and risks the collapse of well-established, resilient communities.
Reply Councillors know that the council has a statutory duty to provide home to school travel for eligible children of compulsory school age in accordance with legislation and statutory guidance issued by the Department for Education (DfE). We spend £52m on home to school travel. Parents have the right to preference any school of their choice when applying for a school place, they do not however have a right to free-of-charge travel arrangements to that school. Increases in the cost of fuel, transport and insurance resulted in full council voting, by a majority, to adopt a revised H2ST policy that is both in line with the Department for Education guidance, and targets resources at those who need it most and who are entitled to travel assistance in line with legislation. Parents are responsible for choosing where to send their children to school. Catchment areas do not prevent parents who live outside the catchment of a particular school from expressing a preference for the school. Castleton school sees around 20% of children living in its catchment travelling to attend other schools out of the catchment area, and equally about 20% of the current cohort travel in from out of the catchment area. Across the county, we know that around 1in 3 of secondary children, and 45% of primary children, attend a school that is not their catchment school. In Whitby, we know that children living in the catchment area for Whitby school attend at least 8 other mainstream secondary schools in the county. This has been the case over many years, and it continues today – because it is a parental choice. And because of this, schools are used to managing transition activities for children joining them from a range of settings. We recognise that many families take travel into account when choosing a school. So it may be helpful to refer you to the DfE’s blog, ‘Free school transport explained: From who’s eligible to how it works’ (Nov 2023). When choosing which schools to apply for, it is important to consider how your child will get there. Some children are eligible for free travel, but this isn’t the case for everyone. Most parents should expect to be responsible for making arrangements for their child to get to and from school. [The Government] set the national eligibility criteria for free travel to school and your local authority is responsible for deciding whether your child meets these criteria. To support families in making informed choices about school applications, we launched a distance calculator tool, schools were contacted to inform them of the new policy on 6 September 2024 and we also sent slides to schools so they could share them with parents at their open evening. The distance calculator, available on the admissions part of the council’s website, was used over 5500 times during this year’s admissions cycle. We are pleased to see that Whitby School saw similar numbers of allocations on this year’s National Offer Day as it did last year. The council’s change in policy aims to reduce the cost to taxpayers of home to school travel, and so it will lead to a reduction in eligibility over time, but I hope that you understand, travel is only one factor that is considered when parents choose school places. Reduced eligibility does not necessarily equate to reduced children on roll in any specific school. Supplementary question Ms Kevan reiterated her question that are Castleton and Danby schools at risk of losing pupils as a consequence of the new policy? That Whitby School saw similar numbers of allocations on this year’s National Offer Day as it did last year may well be attributable to Whitby School deciding to subsidise school transport. Was such a policy sustainable and was it the best use of school funds? Ms Newbold, Assistant Director Inclusion replied that she disagreed with the comment that one in four schools are at risk of losing pupils. In order to ensure that small, rural primary schools were not at any detriment as a result of the policy, the council had done an assessment for every school in regard to changes in eligibility. Ms Newbold was happy to talk with any headteacher or Chair of Governors about this assessment in respect of their school but this was not a matter for the public arena. Ms Newbold was not aware that Whitby School has decided to subsidise school transport but this was a decision for their Governing Body. She would be meeting with Whitby School in the next weeks to discuss budgets and would be happy to discuss this with them at this meeting. Ms Newbold further commented that the Home to School Travel Policy would be reviewed in summer next year and the review’s findings would be brought to councillors for consideration.
I am the Chair of Governors of Danby Church of England School and Egton Church of England School and also a parent of a child at one of these schools. Both Schools are located in the rural Esk Valley in North Yorkshire and have 46 children and 42 children respectively. Due to the location of Danby School, approximately 50% of our children are out of catchment and live in the county of Redcar and Cleveland. Despite this, the majority of our children have historically tended to transition from Year 6 to Whitby for Secondary School as this is in the catchment area for Danby. The new transport arrangements that came in to force on 1st September 2024 do, in my opinion provide a high level of concern about the future of our young children’s education and mental health in our local area. I would like to confirm that I have had sight of a statement that you have received from Joanne Kevan, Vice Chair of Castleton School and agree with all the points raised. In addition to this, I would like to raise concerns regarding the potential social impact that this change in transport arrangement may have on our young people. Currently the government have a huge concern about the mental health and wellbeing of young children especially with regards to anxiety. At the age of 11, moving from a Primary School of 45 children to a Secondary School of over 1500 children is very daunting. Primary School practitioners work tirelessly for 7 years to prepare children for this transition, not only educationally but also by trying to install resilience and confidence in them. Part of this is helping them to build relationships with their peers and they rely on the knowledge that they will have the comfort and security of their friends when they take this big step in their childhood. The new transport arrangements potentially mean that in a class of 7 children aged 10 and 11, 5 of them could go to different Secondary Schools as these are the ones closest in distance to their home addresses. The dilemma for parents is two-fold – do they send their child to the nearest school so that school transport is provided (even the closest Secondary School is 12 miles away with no public transport available) and risk their mental health and wellbeing which in turn could have a significant negative impact on their future or do they somehow struggle to ‘find’ an additional cost of approximately £850 per year to pay for school transport to the school that their child has been involved with all their Primary School life and keep them with their peers? It’s an impossible decision and feels unfair. For some parents who are unable to ‘find’ the additional funds for transport costs, it completely eliminates parental choice. There is currently an attendance crisis in this country and schools are under increasing pressure to maintain relationships with their parents to ensure attendance. This situation will not help with this at all. Reply It is noted that Mr White supports the comments made by Ms Kevan, the earlier speaker. As stated in the previous response, schools are used to receiving children from many different settings and they understand the importance of positive transitions. Indeed, Mr White mentioned in his statement that about half of the children in Danby primary school travel to the school from out of area – indeed, school census data confirms this is 65% of the school’s roll. At the same time one in five families living in Danby’s catchment area, attend other local schools. These families are exercising parental choice for admissions, and it is clear that Danby school is benefitting from this. When children move from primary to secondary schools, we recognise this is a big step. But again, it is for parents to decide where to apply for places. The council listened to feedback at the consultation last spring and decided to extend the entitlement for free travel to families of children from low-income households to cover a greater distance than the national requirement, so that parents of secondary age children in low-income households can exercise meaningful choice. (In accordance with their declarations of interests above, Councillors Swannick and Swiers left the meeting when questions 1 and 4 were being considered by the committee.)
|
|
126 |
Director of Public Health Annual Report 2023-24 and Growing Up in North Yorkshire survey
Considered the Director of Public Health Annual Report 2023- 24: ‘Live, Age, Engage: healthy ageing in North Yorkshire’ and presentations by Dr Victoria Turner and Dr Gill Kelly, Consultants in Public Health on the DPH Annual Report and the Growing Up in North Yorkshire Survey 2024. The first presentation centred on the public health priority of healthy ageing and its relevance to the county and the coast because of the higher than average and increasing number of older residents. The ageing population brought challenges around greater health needs but also opportunities in terms of volunteering and spending power. Analysis of the evidence in respect of older people helped public health to identify four key priorities to achieve healthy ageing: health and reducing inequalities; housing; employment and financial security; and making North Yorkshire an age-friendly place. Overlaying these priorities was the key aim to embed a more strategic approach to healthy ageing in the county. Ms Turner then listed some the issues which fell under these priorities such as: staying healthy in the workplace; encouraging uptake of pension credits (it was estimated that in the Scarborough and Whitby area over £5m of pension credits were unclaimed every year); the higher proportion of older people renting in Scarborough; accessing primary health care, preventing falls and dying well; and digital inclusion. In respect of the Annual Report’s recommendations, Dr Turner highlighted the overarching one of all agencies and services to consider the projected increase in older people and what this means for their services and infrastructure. Following the presentation, issues raised by members included:
The second presentation delivered by Dr Gill Kelly examined the results of the Growing Up in North Yorkshire survey 2024 with reference to Scarborough and Whitby and the wider county. Dr Kelly advised that a huge amount of data was collected from young people for this biennial survey and overall trend analysis showed more positive than negative changes for the whole county since the last survey in 2022. A series of priorities had been identified from the 2022 survey including healthy weight, healthy lifestyle, online safety and resilience and emotional wellbeing. The presentation focused on the main messages from four topics with Scarborough and Whitby and total North Yorkshire data provided, and then comparisons to 2022. Small percentage differences were not regarded as statistically significant. Of the most concern had been emotional wellbeing but this data in the whole had shown improvement since 2022, in part owing to public interventions and time elapsing since the pandemic. Within the overall positive picture were concerns that some 30% of secondary school children did not feel they had somebody to talk to and also the far greater proportion of secondary school girls than boys who worried about their looks and experienced lower emotional resilience. The personal, health and social curriculum was being adapted to respond to these concerns. Despite improvements in awareness around online safety, there was still much work to do. At face value for younger children, the data showed a reduction in bullying, but perception was key in this regard, and so required further investigation. For older children, the data on bullying had worsened, again necessitating further work. In contrast, the data on sexual health and harassment indicated improvement with greater visibility and awareness. The data on substance use and awareness was also very positive. It seemed that the messages in the classroom on this seemed to be getting through. In conclusion, key priorities from the 2024 survey centred on resilience and emotional wellbeing, having a trusted adult or service for support, continuing to respond to online safety risks, and promoting a healthy bedtime routine. Following the presentation, issues raised by members included:
The Chair thanked both speakers for their presentations and for answering members’ questions. Resolved that the presentation be received.
|
|
127 |
North Yorkshire Community Safety Partnership - Community Safety Hub Update
Considered a presentation by Paul Romans, Community Safety CCTV Manager, on the ongoing review of the seven former districts’ Community Safety Hubs to align practices across the county. This was complex piece of work involving distinct North Yorkshire Police command structures and different CSH roles and practices, but a new structure and revised terms of reference for the CSHs had been developed for agreement with North Yorkshire Police. The proposals reflected an intelligence led approach involving thematic and project work, more effective use of tools and powers to tackle antisocial behaviour, an early intervention model to help address youth criminal behaviour, and a monthly performance framework to drive accountability. Following the presentation, issues raised by members included:
Resolved that the presentation be received.
|
|
128 |
Schools update report
Considered a report by the Corporate Director Children and Young People’s Service in respect of the local educational landscape, educational achievement and the financial challenges which affected schools in the Scarborough and Whitby area. Bob McGovern asked a public question to which officers replied. See details under Minute 125 above. Introducing the report, Jon Holden, Strategic Planning Manager explained that the report was designed to provide a broad overview of educational issues affecting this area as at 31 August 2024, including school standards, suspensions and permanent exclusions, special educational needs and disabilities, school finance, and school place planning. In response to their questions, members were advised that:
Resolved that members note the report on educational factors in the Scarborough and Whitby Area Committee area.
|
|
129 |
AC Economic Development, Regeneration, Tourism and Transport Project Development Fund Update - March 2025
Considered a report of the Corporate Director of Community Development which provided an update on the Economic Development, Regeneration, Tourism and Transport projects endorsed by the committee together with a presentation delivered by Joe Russell, Principal Regeneration Officer. Mr Russell divided the projects into three categories:
Members then discussed the progress report and thanked officers for their work on these projects. Mr Russell confirmed that the expected overall underspend of some £10,300 would be treated as a corporate saving. Resolved that: (i) the report be received; and (ii) a final progress report be submitted to the next Area Committee meeting on 6 June 2025.
|
|
130 |
Scarborough & Whitby Area Committee Work Programme 2024/25
Considered the latest draft of the committee’s work programme for 2024-25. The Chair confirmed the following topics for potential consideration by the committee (this may initially be at an informal monthly briefing): · In light of the public question about Hawkes Leisure, the provision of leisure services in Scarborough · Unclaimed benefits including Housing Benefit and Pension Credit
The Chair took soundings on the new longer format of the committee with a lunch break. The majority view at the meeting was to continue with this format rather than programme additional committee meetings, but the Chair would welcomed further comments on this. Reference was made to the technological limitations which prevented holding the area committee meeting in Whitby since the meeting could not be livestreamed nor remote attendance enabled. The Chair confirmed that representations had been made on this matter following the committee’s resolution at its meeting on 29 November; however, if members wished to take this further, then they could contact the Executive Member for Corporate Services.
Resolved that the work programme be noted.
|
|
131 |
Any Other Items
There was no urgent business.
|
|
132 |
Date of Next Meeting
6 June 2025
|
|
133 |
Reports circulated for information only
|
|
134 |
De-registration of designated Children's Centres in area - update
|
The meeting concluded at 2.51 pm.