Agenda and draft minutes

Apologies were received from Councillor Karl Arthur.

To confirm the minutes as a correct record.

Resolved

a)    That the minutes of the meetings held on 13 December 2024 and 17 January 2025 are confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

There were none.

Members of the public may ask questions or make statements at this meeting if they have given notice and supplied the text to David Smith, Senior Democratic Services Officer, democraticservices.central@northyorks.gov.uk by midday on Tuesday, 22 April 2025. Each speaker must limit themselves to 3 minutes.

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 Chair who will instruct anyone who may be taking a recording to cease while you speak.

One public statement was received before the deadline of midday on Tuesday 22April 2025.

Charlotte Poran made the following statement.

Good morning Councillors,

I’m here today because I need you to understand why the current Home to School Transport policy is not fit for purpose and so you can hear firsthand the distress it is causing hundreds of hard-working families here in your area.

My family and I live in Kirk Hammerton, one of the many A59 villages who have been caught in the crossfire of your decision to remove free transport to catchment school. My son is in year 8 at our local catchment secondary school, Boroughbridge High School. The assumption has always been that my daughter would join him there this September. Like many, we have made a concerted effort as a family over several years to forge links with the school to make that transition to secondary school as stress-free for her as possible.

Just two weeks before school admissions opened last September, the new policy landed out of the blue. That kickstarted months of anxiety and confusion for my whole family and for many others like us. Overnight, the local catchment school that we know and trust now comes with a caveat - no free transport. To find out that my daughter would not be able to join her brother on the bus that is already travelling to that school and which runs every day with empty seats, because of a decision made by this council to supposedly save money, was jaw-dropping. Surely this couldn’t be right. It made absolutely no sense.

I took to studying the NYC website so I could fully understand the options and put the right list of schools on the form. It was almost impossible. To highlight the dilemma:

·       The guidance on which schools to include on the preferred list was different on the 2025 admissions form vs what was written in the school transport policy.

·       The information on the website was confusing and contradictory. Even the support team were unsure and even now, having made a selection, I’m crossing my fingers in the hope I have done the right thing.

·       My nearest school listed (King James’ High School in Knaresborough) is well-known for being oversubscribed. As we are outside of its catchment, we were therefore unlikely to get a place. Of the next 3 nearest schools, all are out of county with no current transport option from my village and in totally the opposite direction from my son’s school so not practical for us as a family. Only if the 4 nearest schools to me are full would my daughter be offered a place at our catchment school and free home to school transport.

·       The only school that I knew we’d be guaranteed a place was Boroughbridge High School - our catchment and our first choice. But that option now meant having either to put my career on hold and drive my daughter there or find the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 126.

Members received written updates from the area’s two MPs and the following question was raised.

·         Regarding Keir Mather’s statement, where is the additional £1.1million of additional funding for flood defences going? Members raised concerns that this was going to the Environment Agency for a project that started circa 18 months ago.

Resolved

a)    That the updates are noted.

b)    That any queries raised during the discussion are fed back.

Amanda Fielding answered the following questions during the discussion.

·         Holy Family School is a mainstream school that provides Targeted Mainstream Provision (TMP) for children and young people with SEND. Since the academy trust proposed to close the school, a decision that has been approved by the Department for Education (DfE), the Council has worked with other schools to replace the TMP provision lost at Holy Family School as well as increasing the overall amount of TMP in the Selby area.

·         Four new TMPs will open in the Selby area in 2025, providing 32 new specialist places. These will be at Barlby High School (both SEMH and Communication & Interaction), Brayton CofE Primary and Riverside Primary School.

·         Assurance was given that all children requiring specialist assistance are accessing facilities. It was noted that this included those children from Holy Family School.

·         The assessment team are prioritising new assessments so that they are completed within the 20 week timeline, but the historic backlog is also being reduced.

·         Regarding the new SEND school, the Council has completed the required work and are awaiting correspondence from DfE. Members suggested that this is raised with the local MP.

·         Members felt that academies should come back to the local authority before closing a school. Whilst this is not the current procedure, Members agreed to raise this with the area’s MPs.

Resolved

a)    That the updates are noted.

b)    That the relevant points are raised with the local MPs.

The following points were raised during the discussion with Amanda Fielding, Jon Holden and Louise Wilson providing responses.

·         Members queried why a date of 31 August 2024, the day before the introduction of the new Home to School Travel Policy, was used when gathering statistics. Officers highlighted that the report reflects issues associated with schools as at the end of the last academic year, which ended on 31 August 2024. Officers informed Members that it was not possible to include information on the impact that the Policy has on these statistics as school offers were only issued on 16April 2025, but that next year’s annual report will provide this information.

·         Members highlighted areas with high surplus capacities and suggested that Officers look into these areas and plan ahead.

·         Officers reported that the number of home educated children was at its highest and that the Council is responsible for checking the suitability of home education annually. Members raised that the Children and Families Overview and Scrutiny Committee recently looked into this topic. Officers agreed to provide a written update including information on what the Council does to support home educated children and whether the closure of rural schools leads to an uptake in children being home educated. It was highlighted that there is limited data on further education and employment statistics for home educated children (destination data) and Members suggested that improvements be made regarding this. Members asked for this latter point to be raised with the local MPs.

·         Members queried the number of maintained schools and the number of academies. Officers reported that 51% of schools are maintained by the local authority (182/356). Members queried whether the number of academies was increasing, and Officers reported that it was.

Resolved

a)    That the update is noted.

b)    That a written update on home educated children is provided to the Committee.

c)    That concerns regarding the destination data collected on home educated children be relayed to the local MPs.

Drew Fussey and Tracy McLuckie provided an update before a discussion followed. The key points are highlighted below.

·         Environmental enforcement covers the following areas: waste offences, fly tipping, unauthorised encampments and dog control.

·         A new Unauthorised Encampment Policy has been developed and there is a Joint Working Protocol with North Yorkshire Police.

·         Members suggested that the Committee gets regular updates on environmental enforcement statistics. Officers agreed to provide updates but highlighted that work is required to standardise how data is collected and presented. It was hoped that regular updates could start in about six months. Members suggested that these should include information on how many fly tipping offences are reported, how many of these receive penalty notices and how many are taken to court.

·         There are roughly 50 reports of fly tipping in the Selby area per month, but this figure will include some duplication of reports. Roughly 50-60% of this is household waste (black bags, small items of furniture, etc.). Roughly 15% are white goods. About 80% of fly tipping is on public highways. The team is educating people on illegal waste carriers in an attempt to reduce fly tipping. Members asked for these statistics to be shared via email.

·         Members queried the number of people prosecuted for fly tipping. Officers reported that since the formation of NYC, very few cases have resulted in prosecution, but that the team hopes to increase the number of people going to court where there is viable evidence of fly tipping. Members highlighted the deterrent that prosecution could provide.

·         A Member reported a slow response to a burnt-out car in their division and Drew asked that Members report issues directly to him.

·         Members queried what work was being done to reduce litter on the side of the canal following the removal of bins owned by the Canal and Rivers Trust. Officers reported that the links between the Trust and NYC could be improved but reported good links with Waste and Street Scene colleagues. Officers are investigating whether bins can be introduced near to the canal where NYC can service them.

·         Concerns regarding graffiti were raised and Officers informed Members that there is an added difficulty on private land as it is the landowner’s responsibility to remove graffiti. In situations where the graffiti is offensive, NYC Waste and Street Scene Officers will be involved.

·         Members queried the use of Section 215 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and Officers reported that the power is currently only used by planning colleagues. Members and Officers felt that it would be useful for environmental enforcement to have use of this power and requested that this be investigated.

·         Officers informed Members of multiple ways that residents could contact Officers regarding issues. Members suggested that this information be provided to all parish councils. These were:

o   Contact RegSupport@northyorks.gov.uk via email.

o   Use the relevant portal on the NYC website.

o   Call the relevant contact us phone number.

Resolved

a)    That the verbal update is noted.

b)    That  ...  view the full minutes text for item 130.

Members received a written update and the following points were raised during the discussion.

·         Issues regarding parking enforcement in Tadcaster were raised and it was reported that many of the roads are not enforced, but that one in particular sees residents getting fines continuously. Members asked that this be sorted promptly.

·         Members noted that TROs will be digitised but raised concerns that delays are often within Legal Services.

·         Members raised frustrations that cars parked on the pavements outside of shops in Selby don’t get parking tickets.

·         Members asked that Officers attend a future meeting to answer questions.

·         Councillors asked for a breakdown of where the £20m of income received by parking services each year is spent.

·         Members queried how to request that Parking Enforcement go to more rural areas.

Resolved

a)    That the update is noted.

b)    That the Committee requests that Officers attend a future meeting.

c)    That the above concerns are reported to Officers.

Tim Johns provided a presentation and a discussion followed. The principal points are summarised below.

·         A discussion regarding who was involved with the LNRS took place and it was accepted that landowners with small areas of land should be involved. Officers asked that Members circulate any information about the LNRS to residents.

·         Members suggested that paragraph 11.1 of the report should be more optimistic.

·         It was explained that Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) were taken into account, but that the LNRS focuses on the areas surrounding these sites, rather than the SSSIs themselves.

Resolved

a)    That the update is noted.

b)    That the PowerPoint is circulated to Members.

Councillor John McCartney left the meeting at 11.57am.

Jos Holmes introduced the report and a discussion followed. The principal points are summarised below.

·         Officers commended the community-based climate action that is taking place in the area.

·         It was clarified that SPF008 on page 66 of the papers was duplicated and that this was not two different projects.

·         There was a discussion on the capital funding that had been ringfenced for climate change projects in the Selby area. Officers clarified that funding had been ringfenced for two years to fund the following projects: tree planting in the Selby area; an Electric Vehicle (EV) charging point at Selby Civic Centre; decarbonisation activities at Selby Library; and any additional money to be spent at the industrial park in Sherburn in Elmet, specifically on the provision of public transport. Only the tree planting had been completed within the two years and so Officers informed Members that it is not clear whether the funding will still be ringfenced for the other projects. The Officer reported that the EV charging point was now part of a Local EV Infrastructure project but had not yet been delivered. The Officer also reported that a decarbonisation audit of Selby Library had taken place and therefore that project was now in the pipeline. The Committee was supportive of the idea that the money should be ringfenced for these projects for an additional 12 months and asked that Officers bring information regarding this to the next meeting in June.

·         Members felt that more work could be done to improve EV infrastructure in the Selby area and Officers drew attention to the Local EV Infrastructure project. Members raised concerns regarding the EV charging points in Tadcaster that are not yet working.

·         Members highlighted that more work should be done to improve NYC owned buildings. This included the installation of solar panels and the improvement of insulation and boilers. The Officer said they would take this back to the Property team and highlighted that a decarbonisation audit is required before submitting a proposal for funding.

·         Members requested that Officers interact with Members more often to take advantage of their local knowledge.

·         Members queried whether the community transport services in the area were reaching their desired outcomes and suggested that better advertisement of these services is required.

Resolved

a)    That the report is noted.

b)    That an update on the capital funding that had been ringfenced for climate change projects in the Selby area be brought to the 26 June 2025 meeting.

David Smith introduced the report and Members made the following additions or amendments.

·         An item on land and properties owned by NYC in the Selby and Ainsty area was requested. Members asked for a list of NYC assets in the area, details on the steps that the council is taking to ensure that these assets are delivering best value and requested that the Committee is involved with these discussions.

·         The Committee discussed ways in which NYC can help to develop infrastructure in the area, highlighting Section 106 agreements and discussions with the MPs or Mayor. Whilst it was not agreed to add this to the work programme, Members did suggest that the scope of this item is narrowed.

·         Members suggested an update from the Economic Development and Regeneration teams the ‘Vision for Selby’ projects.

Resolved

a)    That the above additions and amendments be made.

Any other items which the Chair agrees should be considered as a matter of urgency because of special circumstances.

There were none.

Thursday, 26 June 2025 at 2.00pm

Thursday, 26 June 2925 at 2.00pm.