Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Richard Webb

Resolved –

That the public Minutes of the meeting held on 23 January 2024, having been printed and circulated, be taken as read and confirmed by the Chair as a correct record.

Councillor Gareth Dadd declared a personal non-prejudicial interest in regard to Agenda item 5 – Revenue Budget for 2024/25 and Medium Term Financial Strategy to 2026/27, as the owner of a small number of holiday lets. He confirmed the Standards Committee had given a dispensation for this, enabling him to participate in, and vote at the meeting.

Members of the public may ask questions or make statements at this meeting if they have given notice to Will Baines of Democratic and Scrutiny Services and supplied the text (contact details below) by midday on Thursday 1 February 2024, three working days before the day of the meeting.  Each speaker should limit themselves to 3 minutes on any item.  Members of the public who have given notice will be invited to speak:

·         at this point in the meeting if their questions/statements relate to matters which are not otherwise on the Agenda (subject to an overall time limit of 30 minutes);

·         when the relevant Agenda item is being considered if they wish to speak on a matter which is on the Agenda for this meeting.

If you are exercising your right to speak at this meeting, but do not wish to be recorded, please inform the Leader who will instruct anyone who may be taking a recording to cease while you speak.

A total of eight public questions and statements had been received.

There were two public questions and statements submitted relating to Agenda Item 6 – Selby District Local Plan – Revised Regulation 19 draft plan for public consultation, which the Chair agreed to consider as part of that agenda item.

There were five public questions and statements submitted relating to Agenda Item 7 – Maltkiln New Settlement – Submission of the New Settlement DPD, which the Chair agreed to consider as part of that agenda item.

A further public submission received from Mr Roger Tuckett was taken under this item:

‘My supposition really is that the consultation process for the All-Ages Autism Strategy is faulty, because it’s liable to be a process of group-think rather than true engagement. Overall, it will fail to deliver the outcome and outputs. It has been carried out with zeal and enthusiasm by officers, but my conclusion is that it is not fit for purpose. There are perhaps four main reasons for this: first of all, it needs to be preceded by a comprehensively updated needs assessment for autism, but the Council’s last needs assessment for autism was dated back in 2013, some 11 years ago. Secondly, there is a need for a successful co-production to engage not only with those who are autistic but also those experts within the autistic community and unfortunately this hasn’t really happened, opportunities have been missed. I’ve suggested the idea of focus groups to help do this. Third, there is a complete absence of third sector services for adult autism in North Yorkshire, and I believe that needs to be addressed and unlike other parts of the country where it does exist, that it be put in place. Finally, there is a cultural separation between health and social care across the country, but certainly here in North Yorkshire, and efforts need to be made to bridge that gap between the Health and Wellbeing Board and the ICB, from local authorities and the NHS and above all, leadership is required.

YaaaG the organisation is ready to engage with such leadership to find solutions.

Key messages are that:

·       Health (NHS) and Social Care (Local Authority) thinking must be combined.

·       New strategies must be preceded by thorough evaluation of existing services and unmet need.

·       True co-production with lived experience is essential, combined with proactive steps to understand hard-to-reach voices through focus groups.

·       Create and incubate new Third Sector providers across North Yorkshire & York.

·       Adopt person-centred thinking. Embrace individuality

·       Consider Autism, ADHD and Neurodiversity together

·       Welcome and adopt a transformational approach to change

Whereas, taking account of the not-fit-for-purpose process of the consultation on the

Council’s draft Autism Strategy, and noting the failure of the North Yorkshire & York Integrated Care Place Boards to make any progress on the issues associated with significantly oversubscribed diagnostic services with waiting lists for adults with suspected Autism and ADHD, please will elected NY Council Members through its Executive Committee establish an open and transparent Leadership Group of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 391.

Recommendations:

i)               That the Executive revises the recommended Budget for 2024/25 and the MTFS for the period to 2026/27 to reflect the additional government funding as set out in paragraph 3.1.

ii)              That the Executive gives delegated authority to the Corporate Director, Resources, in consultation with the Executive Member for Finance, to make consequential changes to the report to Council relating to the Budget for 2024/25 and the MTFS for the period to 2026/27 for Council consideration on 21 February 2024.

Considered – Report of the Corporate Director – Resources following the announcement of additional funding for local government on 24 January 2024.

Councillor Gareth Dadd introduced the item, noting that this report was brought forwards following concerns that the £7.5m headroom figure originally recommended by the Executive to Full Council as part of the Budget for 2024/25 report (based on provisional local government finance settlement figures) could be breached as a result of the government announcement on 24 January 2024 of additional funding for councils for 2024/25.

Gary Fielding, Corporate Director – Resources explained that in the time between the publication of the agenda papers and the meeting taking place, the final Local Government Finance Settlement has now been received and this report is in line with the final settlement figures. Working on the basis that the funding is one-off, then if agreed by Full Council the deficit for 2024/25 reduces by £6.2m of additional government funding and the drawdown of reserves for the budget deficit over the MTFS is reduced by the same amount.

Councillor Carl Les raised the issue of Member Locality Grants and was convinced of the value of them, especially the multiplier effect that can be gained in some instances through match funding. He felt it was right to have reviewed all areas to identify potential savings, but suggested locality grants continue at the £10,000 limit for 2024/25.

In order to inform the 2025/26 budget setting process, he asked Councillor David Chance to review the Member Locality Grant guidance for match funding in order to strengthen it and try to encourage investment into environmental interests. He also asked Councillor Gareth Dadd to undertake a review of all sources of community funding (including the £50k allocated to each Area Constituency Committee), to see if they are worthwhile continuing, in order to inform the 2025/26 Budget process.

Councillor Gareth Dadd welcomed the £6.2m additional one-off funding from government, but highlighted the fundamental problem still existed in three years of a circa £47m recurring deficit. Savings and efficiencies to date, done in a way that protects the frontline services, will still need to be made. He also welcomed the pause of any reduction in the Member Locality Grants for 2024/25, but was keen that the proposed review looks at all of the financial support given to local communities in the round, rather than in isolation. He was clear that the money given out through Member Locality Grants or directly allocated to communities is taken from reserves, and it is not sustainable, hence bringing forward the amended report recommendations proposing a review in time to inform the 2025/26 Budget process.

Resolved –

i)        That the Executive revises the recommended Budget for 2024/25 and the MTFS for the period to 2026/27 to reflect the additional government funding as set out in paragraph 3.1.

ii)       In addition the savings attributed to the reduction to Member Locality Grants (CS11 of Appendix B1) is removed until such time as a review is carried  ...  view the full minutes text for item 392.

Recommendations:

 i)               To recommend to Full Council that the Draft Revised Publication Local Plan document at Appendix 1 of this report is approved for consultation in accordance with Regulation 19 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) regulations 2012 (as amended); and

ii)               Delegate to officers the arrangements for the consultation to take place for six weeks between 8 March and 19 April 2024; and 

iii)               Delegate to the Head of Policy and Place and Assistant Director of Planning in consultation with the Executive Member for Open to Business, any minor amendments required to the documentation for typographical, grammatical and factual or Plain English purposes and any amendments required to address issues raised in the final HRA and SA reports to the documents prior to publishing for consultation.   

Considered – A report of the Corporate Director for Community Development setting out the options which have been considered in progressing the Selby District Local Plan and the recommendation to undertake a further consultation on a revised Regulation 19 Publication Local Plan.

Councillor Derek Bastiman introduced the report and welcomed the public participants to the meeting and their submissions, as follows:

1.       Mary McCartney

‘This plan massively reduces the number of affordable homes that could be provided in the Selby area for the next 17 years; that is social housing for rent and vital starter homes to enable people to get on to the home ownership ladder. 

Currently the policy calls for 40% affordable homes on ALL sites. 

There are 39 site allocations in the plan that have a figure for affordable housing, either 5% 10% or 20%. Under this plan a maximum of just 13%  affordable homes will be delivered.

But the big builders, who are looking to develop the 20% sites, will put in a “Viability Assessment” claiming that there are special circumstances, extraordinary financial costs, that mean they will not be able to make a profit if they have to build the 20% affordable homes, and they are very very successful at doing this.

And that will further reduce the number of affordable homes provided over the next 17 years. 

The plan will see around 5,400 homes built. Even if all of the targets on affordable houses were hit, and they will not be, a pathetic 716 affordable homes would be provided. Of that 716 homes, only 25% would be starter homes for first time buyers; a measly 179, about ten a year!

We have a housing crisis. That crisis is not a shortage of executive homes it is a shortage of affordable homes, to rent and to help get people onto the home ownership ladder.

This Plan should be delayed, the 40% affordable homes policy should be retained and the Council should start rigorously opposing the big builders “Viability Assessments”.

Selby needs a Local Plan for the people who need affordable housing not one for big builders and their profits.’

Councillor Derek Bastiman responded that the affordable housing target set within the Local Plan has to be underpinned by evidence. He noted that changed economic circumstances meant that the level of affordable housing that can now be justifiably requested is reduced from that set out in the adopted Core Strategy back in 2013. However, it is considered that the affordable housing levels required as part of the draft plan strike the right balance between meeting the high levels of affordable housing need when tested against viability. He felt the proposals are supported by evidence and should remain within the draft plan and be the subject of further statutory consultation, noting that all comments received during the consultation period will be fully considered and addressed before deciding whether to submit the Revised Publication Local Plan to the Secretary of State for Examination in Public.

2.       Councillor Jeff  ...  view the full minutes text for item 393.

Attached is the covering report and feedback from the Development Plans Committee and Selby & Ainsty Area Constituency Committee in respect of the Maltkiln New Settlement Plan.

The full report, including the appendices, was considered by the Development Plans Committee on 16th January 2024 and a link to the full report is provided here, rather than replicate that information in duplicate, in its entirety: -

To see the publicly available information, including the full report and all of the appendices for the Maltkiln New Settlement Plan follow the link: Agenda details on public web site

Please contact Will Baines (contact details at the end of the agenda) should you require a printed version of this document.

Recommendations:

To recommend to Full Council:

i)          That the Council submit the Submission Draft DPD and accompanying submission documents to the Secretary of State for examination.

ii)         That the Corporate Director Community Development in consultation with the Executive Member for Open to Business, be authorised to make minor amendments and graphical improvements to the Submission Draft DPD and submission documents prior to submission.

iii)        That for the period of the examination in public, delegated authority be given to the Head of Infrastructure and Delivery, in consultation with the Executive Member for Open to Business, to:

a.         provide formal responses to questions from the Inspector alongside other supporting statements and documentation as requested by the Inspector.

b.         agree modifications to the plan through the examination period in order to make the plan sound.

c.    To undertake all other necessary steps required as part of the examination

Considered – Report of the Corporate Director of Community Development seeking renewed agreement for submission of the New Settlement (Maltkiln) Development Plan Document (DPD) to the Secretary of State for public examination and to agree the process of decision making during the examination in respect of agreeing modifications to the Plan and responding to questions from the Inspector (including the provision of supporting statements and documentation).

Councillor Derek Bastiman introduced the report, emphasising that Maltkiln presents an opportunity to begin a new settlement from scratch, with a local centre, facilities and infrastructure on site. It will deliver a minimum of 3,000 homes which are much needed in North Yorkshire. A DPD has been prepared to guide delivery and there has been extensive consultation throughout its preparation. The recommendation proposes to Full Council to submit the DPD for examination in public. This process is rigorous and will offer further opportunities for parties to discuss any concerns as well as further consultation on any proposed modifications. Progressing the DPD allows the Council to lead the process, setting the policies and principles to get the high quality development that meets the needs of future residents. The decision was taken by the former Harrogate Borough Council to publish the draft DPD for consultation and to submit the plan. This still has a legal standing, but given the time elapsed, it is felt prudent to reaffirm that decision. The main point to empathise is the decision to submit for examination, not to adopt, and therefore there is rigorous scrutiny ahead in relation to any concerns raised.

The public participants were then invited to address the meeting, as follows:

1.     Clare Beckett

‘I should like to relate to you my own experience of the development plan process.  I have been a member of Whixley Parish council for twenty years and have taken part in many meetings with Harrogate Planners from the outset of the Development Plan process.

At the first workshop I attended I was alarmed to see on the map showing land for possible development that land making up most of our family farm had been included without our knowledge.

No one had notified us of this inclusion and had I not attended the workshop I would not have known.  We did own one smaller field which had always been earmarked for development and has subsequently been built on.  I asked the planning officers to remove our land from showing as being available for development and this was done, but in the meantime CEG Developers had make public their plan for Great Hammerton in 2018 and many people made totally unfounded and unpleasant accusations that we had sold all our land to them.

Having had this experience, I would like to be reassured that Harrogate Planners had, when designating the area outlined for the proposed Maltkiln settlement, obtained written confirmation from the owners of land shown as available for development. As I know from my own experience developers can make plans for land they don’t  ...  view the full minutes text for item 394.

Recommendations:

1)      To spend CIL monies within the same geographical area (previous local authority boundary) from which they were levied, pre and post 1/4/2023

2)      To agree the process for prioritisation of CIL funded infrastructure as set out in paragraphs 3.8 – 3.15 of this report

3)      To approve the 2022/23 Annual Infrastructure Statement (Appendix C) and publish it on the Council website

Considered – Report of the Corporate Director of Community Development seeking approval of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Spending Protocol and the 2022/23 North Yorkshire Annual Infrastructure Funding Statement.

Councillor Derek Bastiman introduced the report, noting that CIL is presently only charged in the legacy district areas of Harrogate, Hambleton, Ryedale and Selby. As part of the report recommendations, it is proposed that the existing CIL charging regime will continue in these areas until either there is a change in government policy or CIL is reviewed as part of the implementation of the new North Yorkshire Local Plan. Whatever option is taken, the existing CIL charging regime is likely to be in place for a further five years.

Now as one unitary authority, there is a need to require a protocol for the spending of the CIL. The report presents two recommendations, with regard to the geographical scope and process for the prioritisation of projects. It is recommended that CIL should be spent within the same legacy area it has been and will be levied in, with the exception of any projects where money would be needed to fund infrastructure projects in adjoining areas if they are identified as being needed to support local plan growth within the legacy CIL area. (e.g. strategic highway improvement)

CIL has to be spent on infrastructure that supports growth, and so the proposed process for prioritising projects looks to ensure that they are aligned with the allocations and objectives of the respective local plans and considers whether they can attract match funding or not. The establishment of the list of prioritised infrastructure projects will be undertaken by a cross service officer working group and presented to Management Board and Executive for approval. The list will be reviewed annually and the first list will be included within the Annual Infrastructure Funding Statement.

The 2022/23 Annual Infrastructure Funding Statement report which is recommended for approval and publication, relates to the legacy district and borough council areas and is split accordingly.

Councillor Yvonne Peacock declared an interest prior to contributing as a Trustee of the Upper Dales Community Land Trust, who have received Section 106 funding. She asked about the future of CIL spend in five years with the development of a new Local Plan and whether CIL funding could come into an area like the Yorkshire Dales National Park.

In response, Councillor Derek Bastiman thanked Councillor Yvonne Peacock for her comments, which would be considered as part of any future review.

Councillor Simon Myers noted that the proceeds of the recently agreed second homes council tax premium to be applied from 1 April 2024 would help communities to deliver affordable housing across all of North Yorkshire and meet the need where it is greatest. He also noted the lack of responses received from parish councils to enquiries as to the spend or anticipated spend of CIL.

Councillor Gareth Dadd welcomed the new protocol.

Resolved -

The Executive resolves:

1)    To spend CIL monies within the same  ...  view the full minutes text for item 395.

Recommendations:

 i.               That the Executive approve that the Local Development Scheme (attached at Appendix 1) shall take effect on 7 February 2024 and be published on the Council’s website.

ii.               That the Corporate Director Community Development in consultation with the Executive Member for Open to Business, be authorised to make minor amendments and graphical improvements to the Local Development Scheme prior to publication on the council’s website

Considered – Report of the Corporate Director of Community Development seeking the approval and publication of the council’s Local Development Scheme.

Councillor Derek Bastiman introduced the report, noting the introduction of a Local Development Scheme (LDS) is a requirement of national planning legislation. It is a high level project plan with key milestones for the preparation of a new Local Plan for North Yorkshire, the Selby Local Plan and the Maltkiln New Settlement DPD. There is no timescale included for the Minerals and Waste Joint Plan, with a review scheduled to take place in 2 years, at which point the LDS will be updated.

It was explained that the Council committed to the development of a new Local Plan for North Yorkshire in February 2023, with work underway to engage with key stakeholders, members and preparation of evidence base. There will be a Call for Sites starting in March, with the first major public consultation taking place at the end of 2024 as an Issues and Options for the Local Plan. The current timetable is to submit the Local Plan to the Secretary of State in quarter 2 of 2027, thereafter the timetable will be in the hands of the inspector appointed by the Secretary of State. However, it is estimated that a new North Yorkshire Local Plan will be adopted by the end of 2028.

There being no questions, it was:

Resolved –

i.        That the Executive approve that the Local Development Scheme (attached at Appendix 1) shall take effect on 7 February 2024 and be published on the Council’s website.

ii.       That the Corporate Director Community Development in consultation with the Executive Member for Open to Business, be authorised to make minor amendments and graphical improvements to the Local Development Scheme prior to publication on the council’s website.

Recommendation:

That the Executive consider the 2024-2025 Pay Policy and recommend to Full Council, at their meeting on 21 February 2024, the approval of the Pay Policy for publication.

Considered – Report of the Assistant Chief Executive (HR and Business Support) setting out the North Yorkshire Council Pay Policy.

Trudy Forster, Assistant Chief Executive - HR and Business Support introduced the report, including the Pay Policy statement covering the period 1 April 2024 to 31 March 2025. It sets out the pay details of senior managers, in line with openness and transparency code requirements under the Localism Act. There are no proposed changes to the pay structure as part of the report.

Councillor Simon Myers welcomed the reduction of the pay multiple ratio.

Resolved –

That the Executive consider the 2024-2025 Pay Policy and recommend to Full Council, at their meeting on 21 February 2024, the approval of the Pay Policy for publication.

Considered –

The Forward Plan for the period 22 January 2024 to 31 January 2025 was presented.

Resolved -   That the Forward Plan be noted.