Agenda and draft minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Chris Aldred.  Councillor Peter Lacey attended as his substitute.

Resolved – That the Minutes of the meetings held on 16 March 2026 and 26 March 2026 be taken as read and confirmed by the Chair as a true record.

All Members are invited to declare at this point any interests they have in items appearing on this agenda, including the nature of those interests.

Councillors Derek Bastiman and Andrew Williams declared a personal non-prejudicial interest in Agenda item 10 – Draft Community Transfer Policy.

Members of the public may ask questions or make statements at this meeting if they have given notice to Melanie Carr of Democratic and Scrutiny Services and supplied the text (contact details below) by midday on Wednesday 10 June 2026, 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 Chair who will instruct anyone who may be taking a recording to cease while you speak.

No public questions or statements were received.

Considered – A report of the Corporate Director for Resources providing a progress update on transformation activity across the council which included developing core enabling capabilities such as data and finance systems, implementing new platforms to support service delivery, improving the customer experience, supporting operational improvements to ensure the future sustainability of a number of service-led programmes. 

Members noted a recent decision by Management Board to focus on a few larger cross-cutting transformation priorities.  It was confirmed that a plan to progress those priority areas was being developed and that a programme management team working across services had been introduced to support that work.

Members noted the initial update on each of the priority areas and considered a proposed forward agenda for the remaining committee’s meetings in 2026-27 to receive future focused updates.  The Committee requested that a timetable for progressing each of those priority areas be included in the next update, so that they may better monitor delivery performance.   

Resolved – That the proposed programme for future updates detailed in paragraph 3.2 of the report be agreed.

Considered – A report of the Assistant Chief Executive (Legal and Democratic Services) presenting a summary of the relevant thematic performance data from the Executive’s quarter four performance report.

As there was no associated questions from Members and no identified lines for further inquiry, it was

Resolved – That the performance update be noted.

Considered – A report of the Assistant Chief Executive (Human Resources and Business Support) presenting an annual workforce update.

It was confirmed that data on disabilities within the workforce remained a challenge and that the focus was on ensuring staff updated the system when there were changes in their circumstances.  Assurance was given around how staff with disabilities were managed and that the appropriate reasonable adjustments were being made, on an individual basis.

Members noted and welcomed the leanness of the authority in comparison to others (as shown in table 14), which with the exception of Derbyshire, were considerably less efficient than North Yorkshire Council.

In response to Members’ queries, officers confirmed:

·         The increase in headcount between April 2023 and April 2026 was a result of TUPE transfers - Members requested that future annual reports include a breakdown of staffing numbers, including the number of held vacancies.

·         Only 25% of the workforce were in office based only jobs and therefore suitable for hybrid home working, the rest were out and about.

·         There would always be a need to manage hybrid, as some teams were spread across area offices due to the nature of their work. 

·         There was no evidence of a drop in productivity as a result of hybrid working. Managers were responsible for monitoring team performance output.

·         In these times, the Council would struggle to attract and retain staff if hybrid working were not part of the corporate package.

·         The recruitment system was being changed so that recruitment data could go direct into the HR system.

·         The collection of data on disabilities within the workforce remained a challenge.  The focus was on ensuring staff updated the system when there were changes in their circumstances. 

·         Assurance was given around how staff with disabilities were managed and that the appropriate reasonable adjustments were being made, on an individual basis.

In regard to sickness absence levels, it was noted that previous improvements appeared to have flatlined, and in response it was confirmed appropriate interventions were in place around absence and absence recording.  As this was recognised to be a year of year issue, the Committee requested a further report for their next meeting on the measures being employed to drive down sickness absence.

Finally, given that mental health related issues were a reason for some sickness absence, It was suggested that the Council should consider offering Mental Health first aid training to senior staff/ managers.

Resolved – That:

·         The report be noted

·         A further report on the measures being employed to drive down sickness absence be added to the Committee’s work programme for the coming September meeting.

Members received a report reviewing the operation of County Councillor Locality Budgets in the financial year 2025/26, introduced by Rachel Joyce, Assistant Chief Executive for Local Engagement.

Overall, Members were pleased with the overall spend of the locality budget monies and noted the breakdown of the organisations and types of projects/activities that had been supported throughout the year.

In response to Members’ questions the following was confirmed:

·         Where a Councillor appeared to have spent more than their annual £5K budget, it was as a result of one or more transactions from the previous year not having been processed until the start of the 2025/26 year.  The decision to allow that had been taken in conjunction with the relevant Executive Member.

·         Any unspent budget at the end of a year was transferred to the general fund.  A change to this process would require a formal policy change.

Resolved –

That the report on the operation of County Councillor Locality Budgets during the 2025/26 financial year be noted.

Considered – a report of the Assistant Chief Executive for Local Engagement presenting an annual update on the work of the Localities Service, presented by Marie-Ann Jackson, Head of Localities.

Members acknowledged that overall the report was positive, but asked that future report also include detail on the challenges over the last year and the priorities for the year ahead.

In regard to Town Investment Plans, it was confirmed the work was progressing and the engagement process was evolving, giving Area Committees and Town and Parish Councils more ownership.  It was noted that the Area Committees would be asked to endorse the finalised Plans before they were presented to the Executive for approval.  Members agreed that it would be helpful if Town Council endorsements was also sought, given that they would be involved in their delivery.

In regard to the North Yorkshire Local Assistance Fund, it was confirmed the annual budget was  £1.2m but could be supplemented through the Crisis & Resilience Fund over the next few years, where appropriate.

Resolved – That the annual Localities update be noted.

Considered – A report of the Corporate Director for Resources presenting draft Community Transfer and Community Grow Policies, seeking feedback on the proposed approach to community asset and service transfer, including the staged process, governance arrangements and transitional provisions.

Overall Members were pleased with the draft policies and that the Committee had been given the opportunity to comment on them prior to them being considered by the Executive. 

They noted the categories under which, the council would not support the transfer of an asset (as listed in paragraph 6.8 of Appendix A) which included where there was a significant impact on capital or revenue income. The committee questioned the definition of ‘significant’ in that context, and agreed that it would be helpful if that were clarified.  They recognised it would need to take account of both the financial value and social value.   It was confirmed each asset would be looked at individually and assessed on its own merits.  Members also recognised the potential difficulties around assessing social value, and it was confirmed this would be through the various gateways of assessment such as expressions of interest and business cases.

It was acknowledged that some assets may generate minimal revenue but be costly in terms of maintenance e.g. garages and village allotments.  It was suggested the Council may want to investigate whether there was any interest from Parish and Town Councils for taking over the running of such assets.

The challenges arising from the lack of appropriate data inherited from the legacy councils was also confirmed, which resulted in it taking longer to assess and process assets.

Members questioned whether local councillors had been consulted on the transfers already carried out, and it was confirmed by a number of members that they had been kept in the loop.

Finally it was confirmed that in the case of a property asset, the decision would be determined by the Property Board.  If it also involved a Service or if it was a Service without a property, then the Service would make the decision.

Resolved – That the report and draft policies be noted and endorsed.

Considered –  A report of the Assistant Chief Executive for Legal & Democratic Services presenting the call in of a recent decision of the Executive to note the creation of a £7m Reserve to provide for the potential non-repayment of a loan to Brierley Homes; and seeking a decision on whether or not to refer the decision back to the Executive for reconsideration or to full Council and, if so, agree the nature of its concerns about the decision.

Prior to considering the Call-in, the Chair sought clarification from the Corporate Director for Resources on whether the Executive had been asked to approve the creation of a £7m reserve for Brierley Homes, or whether in fact the reserve had already been set aside by the previous 151 officer prior to the Executive meeting. 

In response, the Corporate Director for Resources confirmed it was about the creation of a reserve as part of approving the outcome report.  The reserve did not exist prior to that Executive meeting. The Executive was not asked to approve the use of the reserve.  If in the future, it were deemed necessary on the advice of the section 151 officer to use that reserve, then Executive or full Council approval would need to be sought at that stage.  He also confirmed the money remained in reserve and there had been no change to the Council’s financial position as a result of that Executive decision; and if the committee was to refer the decision back to the Executive for re-consideration, they would only be asked to re-note the creation of the reserve.

The Chair therefore confirmed the call-in was purely on the issue of the creation of a reserve, not about the trading position of Brierley Homes and/or the future of the company.

He went on to outline the call-in process to be followed at the meeting (as detailed in the cover report) and detailed the options available to the Committee i.e. the Committee could either:

·         Send it back to the Executive and ask them not to note the creation of an earmarked reserve.;

·         Send it to full Council, for full Council to ask the Executive not to note the creation of an earmarked reserve, or

·         Endorse the decision of the Executive to note the creation of an earmarked reserve.

The Chair invited Councillor Kevin Foster (proposer of the Call In) to present his call-in rationale.

Councillor Kevin Foster (proposer of the Call In) was invited to present his call-in rationale and he confirmed his view that £7m of public money was a substantial amount of money at a time when councils across the country are facing unprecedented financial pressures. He suggested that residents had the right to expect that every pound was properly accounted for, and that decisions involving large financial risk were subject to robust examination. He expressed concern not just about the amount itself, but about transparency, governance and assurance. If the council believed it was necessary to set aside a reserve of £7m because  ...  view the full minutes text for item 116.

Purpose of the Report – To consider, amend and adopt the committee’s work programme for the remainder of the municipal year.

Considered – The work programme for the remainder of the 2026-27 municipal year presented by the Senior Scrutiny Officer.

Members took account of the discussions on previous agenda items and other developments taking place across the county and agreed a number of amendments to their work programme as follows:

i.      The focus of future Transformation Updates in 2026/27

ii.     The addition of an update on the management of sickness absences for the next meeting in September 2026

Resolved – That the work programme document be updated as above.