1.
Consideration of No Council Tax Payment for the
Terminally Ill
Proposer – Councillor Chris Aldred
Seconder – Councillor Andrew Murday
This Council:
Believes everyone should be able to spend the final days, weeks and
months of their life focusing on what really matters: making memories with
their loved ones. But life is often more expensive when you live with a
terminal diagnosis, and with the rising cost of living, more and more
terminally ill people are being pushed into poverty across the UK every year.
Agrees with calls from the Marie Curie Chairty for Councils across
England to review the financial support they offer people with a terminal
illness, and their loved ones, meaning that people with less than 12 months to
live should be exempt from paying Council Tax - 16 other Councils across the
country have already adopted similar proposals in their 2026/27 Budgets, so
evidence as to the uptake and practicalities are available.
Understands that suspending Council Tax for terminally ill people means
they will face one less financial burden during an already unimaginably
difficult time. It's not just a thoughtful act - it could be the difference
between security and poverty at the end of life, when comfort and dignity
should be non-negotiable.
This Council resolves to:
1.
Support the Marie Curie Campaign calling for
Council Tax relief for terminally ill residents.
2.
Instructs officers to set out a plan to change its
policies, to explicitly include a commitment to support people who have been
diagnosed with a terminal illness within it’s 2027/28
Budget proposal.
3.
Base any entitlement on SR1 forms completed by a
clinician which confirms a person has a progressive disease, and consequently
their patient is expected to pass away within 12 months.
Implications assessment:
·
Financial – a very limited decrease in Council Tax
collection from the small number where the designation applies (persons with a
progressive disease, certified by a clinician via an SR1 form)
·
Legal – may require a change to the Constitution to
be able to do
·
Equality and Diversity – no direct implications
·
Climate Change – no direct implications.
2.
Home to School Transport Policy
Proposer –
Councillor Felicity Cunliffe-Lister
Seconder –
Councillor Matt Walker
This Council notes
that:
·
It is now two years since the Home to School
Transport Policy was adopted in July 2024.
·
The first full admissions cycle (the Class of ‘25)
has now been completed, providing substantial evidence through appeals,
Ombudsman findings, public consultation and feedback from schools and parish
councils to indicate serious issues inherent in the policy and the impact it is
having on families, schools and rural communities.
·
Children starting new schools this year (the Class
of ‘26) are already facing a summer of appeals and uncertainty over access to
both free home-to-school transport and paid-for bus passes.
·
It has been made clear that the scope of the Post
Implementation Review is limited to assessing how the policy is being applied,
not to changing the policy parameters. That can only be done by a Full Council
vote.
·
Any changes required to protect next year’s new
starters (Class of ’27) must be agreed today if they are to be included in time
to be published in the September 2026 admissions arrangements.
·
This Full Council meeting is therefore the last
chance to alter the policy in time to protect next year’s new starters and
avoid another year of harm to rural families and schools.
This Council
believes that:
·
Independent modelling indicates that the Council’s
projected cost savings of £3m based on 70% of impacted families opting out of
their school transport rights, will be eradicated once the additional costs
incurred to deliver the policy are factored in.
·
That the fragmentation of routes and higher admin
costs result in “nearest only” costing 8-10% more to deliver than “nearest or
catchment” in the medium to long term. This equates to a £4-5m additional
budget required annually.
·
The public have made their views clear by sharing
evidence of the negative impact associated with removing catchment over the
last two years through two formal consultations and constant feedback shared
via statements, letters and appeal evidence.
Therefore, this
Council resolves to:
1.
Exercise its discretionary powers granted under the
Department for Education's Home to School Travel and Transport Guidance to
revise the Home to School Transport Policy adopted in July 2024 so that free
home-to-school transport for eligible pupils once again applies to a child's
designated catchment school, as well as their nearest suitable school.
2.
The revised policy be implemented in time for the
September 2027 admissions round.
3.
Appropriate transitional arrangements be introduced
for families affected by the current policy, including those already engaged in
the appeals process.
Implications
assessment
Financial - the
Council's projected savings are based on an incomplete financial model. Once the additional costs of delivering the
policy are considered, the projected savings disappear. Independent modelling
reveals that once fragmentation of routes and additional admin costs are
factored in, even after the seven-year transition period “nearest only” policy
costs 8-10% more to run than "nearest or catchment".
Legal -
reinstating catchment school eligibility is a lawful policy choice. The current
policy continues to expose the Council to avoidable legal, financial and
reputational risk. Policy change requires a Full Council vote. Given the legal
requirement to publish school transport policy by mid-September each year ahead
of the admissions window, 15 July 2026 is the last scheduled Full Council
meeting where change can be implemented in time to impact September 2027 new
starters.
Equality and
Diversity - the equality impacts identified before implementation, most notably
the disadvantage caused
to rural families, have now been evidenced in practice. Restoring catchment
school eligibility would directly address those impacts whilst preserving all
existing transport entitlements.
Climate - the
anticipated environmental benefits have not been demonstrated. The available
evidence suggests the policy may reduce, rather than improve, the efficiency of
North Yorkshire's rural transport network.
Social - the
policy has wider consequences for families, schools and rural communities that
extend beyond transport eligibility and are likely to increase over time if the
current policy remains unchanged. These were not considered in July 2024 when
the policy was first proposed.
3.
Proposed Use of Former RAF Site at Linton-On-Ouse
for Asylum Accommodation
Proposer –
Councillor Carl Les
Seconder –
Councillor Malcolm Taylor
This Council notes
that:
1.
The Government has announced again proposals to
accommodate a significant number of asylum seekers at the former RAF site
located within North Yorkshire. North Yorkshire County Council previously in
May 2022 resolved its stance of being against this proposal.
2.
Local residents, parish councils, community
organisations and elected representatives continue to have concerns regarding
the suitability of the site and the potential impact on local communities and
services.
3.
Any proposal of this scale has implications for
local infrastructure, healthcare, education, community safety, transport
networks and wider public services.
4.
The motion does not seek to diminish the national
obligations to those seeking asylum but concentrates on the proposition that
this is the wrong proposal for the wrong location.
This Council
believes that:
1.
The former RAF site is not an appropriate location
for the large-scale accommodation of single male asylum seekers for the local
population nor the asylum seekers themselves, not least because of the lack of
amenities, services and support.
2.
The concentration of a large number of asylum
seekers in a single rural location is unlikely to support community integration
and places disproportionate pressure on local services and infrastructure.
Therefore, this
Council resolves to:
1.
Authorise the Leader to write to the Minister for
the Border Security and Asylum at the Home Office setting out the Council's
opposition to the proposal and the reasons for that opposition.
2.
Authorise the Chief Executive, in consultation with
the Leader to carry out the necessary action to lobby and challenge the
proposal.
Implications
assessment
Legal - the
accommodation of asylum seekers is a decision for central government,
principally the Home Office. In passing this motion, the Council would be
exercising its general powers as a local authority to make representations to
Government and to advocate on behalf of local communities. If the motion is passed, further legal advice
may be sought on how best to challenge any ultimate decision to proceed with
the proposal.
Climate Change -
there will be climate change implications if Government choose to proceed with
the proposal to develop the largely dormant site to accommodate asylum seekers.
As stated above, the decision will be made by central government and they will
need to undertake their own feasibility studies. There are no direct climate
change implications arising from the Council’s decision to pass the
motion. The Home Office will still have
to determine how to proceed and consider the relevant implications.
Financial - as
stated above the decision is for the Home Office to take and there will be
financial implications across the public sector if the decision is made to
proceed. With regard to the Council’s specific motion to write to Government,
there are no direct financial implications. However, there may be a cost if the
Council determine to follow a legal route towards challenging a future decision
and such decisions would be delegated to the Chief Executive in consultation
with the Leader and the Assistant Chief Executive (Legal and Democratic
Services).
Equalities,
Diversity and Inclusion - the Council is committed to treating all individuals
with dignity and respect and to comply with its Public Sector Equality Duty in
exercising its functions. The motion is
directed towards the suitability of the proposed site, the adequacy of local
infrastructure and services, and the process by which decisions are made,
rather than the characteristics of those who may be accommodated at the site.
The Council recognises that asylum seekers are a potentially vulnerable group
and that they are entitled to fair and lawful treatment under the relevant
legislative framework. It is considered that the Home Office proposals do not
represent the best interests of local residents and not the asylum seekers
themselves. The passing of this motion
would not, in itself, have a direct adverse impact on any person sharing a
protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010. As the proposal is being developed and
assessed by the Home Office, responsibility for considering the equality and
human rights implications of the proposed accommodation, including any Equality
Impact Assessment or equivalent assessment required by law or Government
policy, rests with the relevant Government departments as decision-makers. They
have a duty to give full and proper consideration to its equality and human
rights obligations when determining whether the proposal would proceed.
Minutes:
The Chair informed Members that there were three notices of motion on the agenda. The Chair was required to give a ruling on whether motions should be debated at the meeting or referred to the Scrutiny Board to determine which committee was the most appropriate to consider the matter.
(1) No Council Tax payment for the Terminally Ill – that the motion be referred to Scrutiny Board
(2) Home to School Transport Policy – that the motion be referred to Scrutiny Board
(3) Proposed Use of the former RAF site at Linton-On-Ouse for Asylum Accommodation – that the motion be debated at the meeting
The Chair reminded Members that when considering notices of motion where a motion had been referred to the Scrutiny Board by the Chair the mover of that motion could move ‘that the motion be considered now’ and a vote taken.
303(1) Consideration
of No Council Tax Payment for the Terminally Ill
This Council:
Believes everyone should be able to spend the final days, weeks and months of their life focusing on what really matters: making memories with their loved ones. But life is often more expensive when you live with a terminal diagnosis, and with the rising cost of living, more and more terminally ill people are being pushed into poverty across the UK every year.
Agrees with calls from the Marie Curie Chairty for Councils across England to review the financial support they offer people with a terminal illness, and their loved ones, meaning that people with less than 12 months to live should be exempt from paying Council Tax - 16 other Councils across the country have already adopted similar proposals in their 2026/27 Budgets, so evidence as to the uptake and practicalities are available.
Understands that suspending Council Tax for terminally ill people means they will face one less financial burden during an already unimaginably difficult time. It's not just a thoughtful act - it could be the difference between security and poverty at the end of life, when comfort and dignity should be non-negotiable.
This Council resolves to:
1. Support the Marie Curie Campaign calling for Council Tax relief for terminally ill residents.
2. Instructs officers to set out a plan to change its policies, to explicitly include a commitment to support people who have been diagnosed with a terminal illness within it’s 2027/28 Budget proposal.
3. Base any entitlement on SR1 forms completed by a clinician which confirms a person has a progressive disease, and consequently their patient is expected to pass away within 12 months.
Implications assessment:
· Financial – a very limited decrease in Council Tax collection from the small number where the designation applies (persons with a progressive disease, certified by a clinician via an SR1 form)
· Legal – may require a change to the Constitution to be able to do
· Equality and Diversity – no direct implications
· Climate Change – no direct implications.
Proposer – Councillor Chris Aldred
Seconder – Councillor Andrew Murday
The motion was moved and seconded and referred to the Scrutiny Board to determine the most appropriate overview and scrutiny committee.
303(2) Home to School Transport Policy
This Council notes that:
· It is now two years since the Home to School Transport Policy was adopted in July 2024.
· The first full admissions cycle (the Class of ‘25) has now been completed, providing substantial evidence through appeals, Ombudsman findings, public consultation and feedback from schools and parish councils to indicate serious issues inherent in the policy and the impact it is having on families, schools and rural communities.
· Children starting new schools this year (the Class of ‘26) are already facing a summer of appeals and uncertainty over access to both free home-to-school transport and paid-for bus passes.
· It has been made clear that the scope of the Post Implementation Review is limited to assessing how the policy is being applied, not to changing the policy parameters. That can only be done by a Full Council vote.
· Any changes required to protect next year’s new starters (Class of ’27) must be agreed today if they are to be included in time to be published in the September 2026 admissions arrangements.
· This Full Council meeting is therefore the last chance to alter the policy in time to protect next year’s new starters and avoid another year of harm to rural families and schools.
This Council believes that:
· Independent modelling indicates that the Council’s projected cost savings of £3m based on 70% of impacted families opting out of their school transport rights, will be eradicated once the additional costs incurred to deliver the policy are factored in.
· That the fragmentation of routes and higher admin costs result in “nearest only” costing 8-10% more to deliver than “nearest or catchment” in the medium to long term. This equates to a £4-5m additional budget required annually.
· The public have made their views clear by sharing evidence of the negative impact associated with removing catchment over the last two years through two formal consultations and constant feedback shared via statements, letters and appeal evidence.
Therefore, this Council resolves to:
1. Exercise its discretionary powers granted under the Department for Education's
Home to School Travel and Transport Guidance to revise the Home to School
Transport Policy adopted in July 2024 so that free home-to-school transport for
eligible pupils once again applies to a child's designated catchment school, as well as
their nearest suitable school.
2. The revised policy be implemented in time for the September 2027 admissions round.
3. Appropriate transitional arrangements be introduced for families affected by the current policy, including those already engaged in the appeals process.
Implications assessment
Financial - the Council's projected savings are based on an incomplete financial model. Once the additional costs of delivering the policy are considered, the projected savings disappear. Independent modelling reveals that once fragmentation of routes and additional admin costs are factored in, even after the seven-year transition period “nearest only” policy costs 8-10% more to run than "nearest or catchment".
Legal - reinstating catchment school eligibility is a lawful policy choice. The current policy continues to expose the Council to avoidable legal, financial and reputational risk. Policy change requires a Full Council vote. Given the legal requirement to publish school transport policy by mid-September each year ahead of the admissions window, 15 July 2026 is the last scheduled Full Council meeting where change can be implemented in time to impact September 2027 new starters.
Equality and Diversity - the equality impacts identified before implementation, most notably the disadvantage caused to rural families, have now been evidenced in practice. Restoring catchment school eligibility would directly address those impacts whilst preserving all existing transport entitlements.
Climate - the anticipated environmental benefits have not been demonstrated. The available evidence suggests the policy may reduce, rather than improve, the efficiency of North Yorkshire's rural transport network.
Social - the policy has wider consequences for families, schools and rural communities that extend beyond transport eligibility and are likely to increase over time if the current policy remains unchanged. These were not considered in July 2024 when the policy was first proposed.
Proposer – Councillor Felicity Cunliffe-Lister
Seconder – Councillor Matt Walker
The proposer of the motion, Councillor Felicity Cunliffe-Lister, moved that the notice of motion be considered now and spoke to the motion. Councillor Matt Walker seconded the motion.
Councillor Annabel Wilkinson then spoke in opposition to the motion.
A named vote was requested on the motion that the Notice of Motion be considered now and over 20 Members stood in support. The vote was taken by roll call and declared defeated with 37 for, 46 against, and no abstentions.
For: Councillors Chris Aldred, Joy Andrews, Karl Arthur, Philip Broadbank, Andy Brown, Lindsay Burr MBE, Sam Cross, Felicity Cunliffe-Lister, Michelle Donohue-Moncrieff, Kevin Foster, Hannah Gostlow, Bryn Griffiths, Tim Grogan, Paul Haslam, Janet Jefferson, Mike Jordan, Peter Lacey, John Mann, Steve Mason, Rich Maw, John McCartney, Andrew Murday, David Noland, Stuart Parsons, Kirsty Poskitt, Jack Proud, John Ritchie, Mike Schofield, Tom Seston, Subash Sharma, Dan Sladden, Monika Slater, Andy Solloway, Neil Swannick, Andrew Timothy, Matt Walker and Arnold Warneken.
Against: Councillors Alyson Baker, Derek Bastiman, Eric Broadbent, Nick Brown, David Chance, Liz Colling, Mark Crane, Melanie Davis, Caroline Dickinson, Stephanie Duckett, Keane Duncan, Richard Foster, Sam Gibbs, Caroline Goodrick, Michael Harrison, Robert Heseltine, David Hugill, Nathan Hull, David Ireton, George Jabbour, David Jeffels, Tom Jones, Nigel Knapton, Carl Les OBE, Cliff Lunn, Heather Moorhouse, Simon Myers, Bob Packham, Andy Paraskos, Clive Pearson, Heather Phillips, Janet Sanderson, Karin Sedgwick, Steve Shaw-Wright, David Staveley, Roberta Swiers, Malcolm Taylor, Phil Trumper, Steve Watson, David Webster, John Weighell OBE, Greg White, Annabel Wilkinson, Peter Wilkinson, Andrew Williams and Robert Windass.
The notice of motion, as moved by Councillor Felicity Cunliffe-Lister and seconded by Councillor Matt Walker, was referred to the Scrutiny Board to determine the most appropriate overview and scrutiny committee.
(Councillor Yvonne Peacock declared an interest and left the meeting room during consideration of the item)
303(3) Proposed Use of the former RAF site at
Linton-On-Ouse for Asylum Accommodation
This Council notes that:
1. The Government has announced again proposals to accommodate a significant number of asylum seekers at the former RAF site located within North Yorkshire. North Yorkshire County Council previously in May 2022 resolved its stance of being against this proposal.
2. Local residents, parish councils, community organisations and elected representatives continue to have concerns regarding the suitability of the site and the potential impact on local communities and services.
3. Any proposal of this scale has implications for local infrastructure, healthcare,
education, community safety, transport networks and wider public services.
4. The motion does not seek to diminish the national obligations to those seeking
asylum but concentrates on the proposition that this is the wrong proposal for the wrong location.
This Council believes that:
1. The former RAF site is not an appropriate location for the large-scale accommodation of single male asylum seekers for the local population nor the asylum seekers themselves, not least because of the lack of amenities, services and support.
2. The concentration of a large number of asylum seekers in a single rural location is unlikely to support community integration and places disproportionate pressure on local services and infrastructure.
Therefore, this Council resolves to:
1. Authorise the Leader to write to the Minister for the Border Security and Asylum at the Home Office setting out the Council's opposition to the proposal and the reasons for that opposition.
2. Authorise the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Leader to carry out the necessary action to lobby and challenge the proposal.
Implications assessment
Legal - the accommodation of asylum seekers is a decision for central government,
principally the Home Office. In passing this motion, the Council would be exercising its general powers as a local authority to make representations to Government and to
advocate on behalf of local communities. If the motion is passed, further legal advice
may be sought on how best to challenge any ultimate decision to proceed with the
proposal.
Climate Change - there will be climate change implications if Government choose to
proceed with the proposal to develop the largely dormant site to accommodate asylum seekers. As stated above, the decision will be made by central government and they will need to undertake their own feasibility studies. There are no direct climate change implications arising from the Council’s decision to pass the motion. The Home Office will still have to determine how to proceed and consider the relevant implications.
Financial - as stated above the decision is for the Home Office to take and there will be financial implications across the public sector if the decision is made to proceed. With regard to the Council’s specific motion to write to Government, there are no direct financial implications. However, there may be a cost if the Council determine to follow a legal route towards challenging a future decision and such decisions would be delegated to the Chief Executive in consultation with the Leader and the Assistant Chief Executive Legal and Democratic Services.
Equalities, Diversity and Inclusion - the Council is committed to treating all individuals
with dignity and respect and to comply with its Public Sector Equality Duty in exercising its functions. The motion is directed towards the suitability of the proposed site, the adequacy of local infrastructure and services, and the process by which decisions are made, rather than the characteristics of those who may be accommodated at the site. The Council recognises that asylum seekers are a potentially vulnerable group and that they are entitled to fair and lawful treatment under the relevant legislative framework. It is considered that the Home Office proposals do not represent the best interests of local residents and not the asylum seekers themselves. The passing of this motion would not, in itself, have a direct adverse impact on any person sharing a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010. As the proposal is being developed and assessed by the Home Office, responsibility for considering the equality and human rights implications of
the proposed accommodation, including any Equality Impact Assessment or equivalent assessment required by law or Government policy, rests with the relevant Government departments as decision-makers. They have a duty to give full and proper consideration to its equality and human rights obligations when determining whether the proposal would proceed.
Proposer – Councillor Carl Les
Seconder – Councillor Malcolm Taylor
The notice of motion was moved by Councillor Carl Les and seconded by Councillor Malcolm Taylor.
The motion was then debated.
A vote was taken and the motion was declared carried unanimously.