Meeting documents

Thursday, 8 February 2007

Ryedale House, Malton

 

 

Councillors Mrs Cowling, Mrs Shields and Ms Warriner.

 

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Clarksonand Legard.

 

419. Minutes

 

The minutes of an Ordinary Meeting of the Policy &Resources Committee held on 30 November 2006 and the minutes of aSpecial Meeting of the Committee held on 4 December 2006 (previously circulated)were presented.

 

It was noted that at the last meeting of Council held on 11January 2007 the minutes of the Special Meeting of the Committeeheld on 4 December 2006 had been approved and adopted subject toMinute No. 344 (Mobile Phone Mast, Daskett Hill, Sheriff Hutton)being amended by the addition of part (e) to the resolution “ThatCouncil authorises Officers to release to Sheriff Hutton ParishCouncil and the mast protest group the written opinion of Mr NigelGiffin QC.”

 

 

420. Urgent Business

 

The Chairman reported that there were no items which heconsidered should be dealt with at the meeting as a matter ofurgency by virtue of Section 100B(4)(b) of the Local Government Act1972.

 

421. Declarations of Interest

 

There were no declarations of interest.

 

422. Leisure Service Contract & Central RyedaleSports Facility Programme Board - 14 December 2006 and 15 January2007

 

The minutes of meetings of the Leisure Service Contract &Central Ryedale Sports Facility Programme Board heldon 14 December 2006 (PDF, 24k)and 15 January 2007 (PDF, 25k)(previously circulated) were submitted.

 

 

423. Local Government White Paper

 

The Chief Executive Designate reminded Members that therecently published Local Government White Paper ‘Strong andProsperous Communities’ invited councils to submit proposals forthe creation of new unitary authorities or pathfinder enhancedtwo-tier working status.

 

It was understood that 26 bids had been put forward forunitary status from authorities across the country, including thatsubmitted by North Yorkshire County Council. The bids were to beconsidered over the coming weeks and Ruth Kelly (Secretary of Statefor Communities and Local Government) was expected to announce inMarch, which of the 26 proposals would go forward for stakeholderconsultation. Final decisions were then anticipated in July2007.

 

The Chief Executive Designate reported for information thatthe District Council Network had written to Ruth Kelly stressingthat, in their opinion, the way forward in North Yorkshire was toenhance two-tier working.

 

The Chief Executive Designate circulated for information aNewsletter, which had been produced for the purpose of informingParishes of the current situation with regard to local governmentreorganisation. Members endorsed the Newsletter and agreed that itbe circulated to all Parishes with a view to obtaining their viewson local government reorganisation at the next Parish LiaisonMeeting on 20 February 2007.

 

In addition, Members suggested that a letter be sent to JohnGreenway MP seeking his support for enhanced two-tier workingstatus for North Yorkshire.

 

 

424. A64 Junction Improvements at Malton andNorton

 

The Forward Planning & Economic Development Managersubmitted a report (previously circulated) the purpose of which wasto outline recent indications regarding the Highways Agency’sposition on upgrading of the A64 Musley Bank junction at Malton andto seek to influence the implementation of a full-movement junctionin this location.

 

Recent discussions with Highways Agency Officers had revealedthat whilst an official decision on the Musley Bank junctionupgrade would not be made until May/June 2007 the currentindications were that the scheme would be rejected. This was due topressure on Highways Agency (HA) budgets from competing schemeselsewhere in the Region and reflected a poor ‘value for money’score for a proposed roundabout scheme at Musley Bank; despite itbeing described as a ‘good scheme’ by HA Officers.

 

This was a matter of significant concern. It had beenunderstood by the District and County Councils that there waslimited chance of any HA input to the Brambling Fields upgrade.Consequently, work had been progressing on an RDC-NYCC partnershipapproach to seeking appropriate developer contributions towards thecost of Brambling Fields from relevant development proposals atMalton and Norton. However, officers had understood that there wasa reasonable prospect of the HA funding all, or at least most, ofthe cost of a junction upgrade at Musley Bank.

 

The Forward Planning Manager reported that in the event of thecost of the Musley Bank and Brambling Fields improvements fallingentirely to the local authorities, principally using developercontributions, the timescale for the work was likely to beextended. This would also lead to problems in terms of the time lagbetween granting planning permissions that would contribute towardsfunding, and achieving sufficient funding to implement theupgrades. This also would place an additional burden, given thatdeveloper contributions would also be required to address otherimpacts of development e.g. affordable housing.

 

The news came after recent suggestions from the HA that theywere no longer using Route Management Strategies (RMS) to guide theimprovement of routes within their control. This was a potentiallyretrograde step given that the A64 RMS committed the HA toimprovement of the A64 junctions at Malton and Norton.

 

The improvement of the A64 junctions at Malton and Norton wasa major strategic priority for the Council, and it was an importantelement of the current RSS and LDF strategies and was necessary forthe future well-being of the towns. It was considered crucial thatthe Council, in partnership with the MP, the County Council and theJunctions Action Group took further steps to achieve the mostpositive outcome.

 

 

425. Revisions to Scheme of OfficerDelegation

 

The Development Control Officer submitted a report (previouslycirculated) in connection with proposed alterations to the currentScheme of Delegation. The proposed amendments sought to improveperformance in respect of BCVPI 109(a) and improve efficiency inrespect of Part B, Sections 6 and 9 of the scheme in respect ofTrees & Enforcement Action.

 

Members were reminded that the Scheme of Officer Delegationhad been amended in March 2003 in response to the Best Value Reviewof the development Control Service. Following the implementation ofthe existing scheme and the introduction of a single PlanningCommittee, the performance of the unit had steadily increased.Details of the performance statistics and extracts from theDelegation Scheme were appended to the report.

 

The overall improvement in performance had led to significantawards of Planning Delivery Grant over the last three years and theinterim award of £54,194, which had been announced in December, wasthe second highest award in the county.

 

The report detailed the impact on quarterly performance ofmajor applications. Members were reminded that in March 2003 it hadbeen agreed that all Major applications would be determined by thePlanning Committee. The Development Control Manager reported thatwhilst it was considered appropriate for Members to continue todetermine all approval recommendations for major applications, thatthe refusal of major applications be delegated to officers in thefollowing circumstances only:

 

 

(i) The refusal of major applications on the grounds ofinadequate or incomplete information.

 

(ii) The refusal of major applications which are repeatapplications of the same or similar proposals which have previouslybeen refused by the Local Planning Authority within the preceding12 months.

 

In addition, the following revisions were also proposed inorder that these minor/non-contentious decisions were made byofficers:

 

 

 

(b) To authorise making of Provisional Tree PreservationOrders and the confirmation of unopposed Tree PreservationOrders

 

 

(d) To authorise the taking of ‘No further action’ on minorbreaches of planning control in consultation with the CouncilSolicitor and the Chairman of the Planning Committee.

 

The report had been circulated to all Members of the PlanningCommittee for comment. The Development Control Manager reportedthat five responses had been received, all of which supported theproposed amendments.

 

Members considered the report and supported the proposedamendments subject to:

 

(a) Section 9(d) Enforcement Action being amended to providefor the delegation to be exercised in consultation with Local WardMember/s.

 

(b) That any officer delegations on planning enforcements bereported to the Planning Committee for information.

 

 

426. Post Office Network Draft ConsultationDocument

 

The Chief Executive submitted a report (previously circulated)in connection with the recent consultation document, produced bythe DTI on the 14 December 2006, on the Post Office Network.

 

The Chief Executive reported that there were some 30 PostOffices within the District, which managed from branch Post Officesto much more local facilities offered from shops or residentialproperties.

 

Rural Post Offices were a vital component of a vibrant ruraleconomy. They were service providers and community hubs and as suchshould be considered in the wider context of rural areas as theloss of a Post Office could result in the loss of localservices.

 

The DTI consultation stated “Post Offices play an importantsocial and economic role in the communities they serve. With newtechnology, changing lifestyles and a wider choice of accessingservices, people are visiting post offices less. The network’slosses have risen to almost £4m a week this year and it isunsustainable in its present form. But it remains the Government’spriority to maintain a national post office network with nationalcoverage.

 

To achieve this, a new policy and financial framework is nowneeded and the Government is seeking views on its futureproposals.” A summary of the government’s proposals was appended tothe report.

 

The Chief Executive Designate submitted a series of questionsfor Members’ consideration and comment, and suggested that a reporton the proposals be submitted to the Parish Liaison Meeting on 20February 2007 in order to obtain views from the Town and ParishCouncils.

 

The DTI had specifically asked that when responding, it bemade clear whether the response was from an individual or anorganisation. If the response was on behalf of an organisation itwas necessary to make it clear how the views had beenassembled.

 

Members endorsed the suggestion that the matter be consideredat the Parish Liaison Meeting and it was agreed that Membersforward any comments on the proposals to the Chief ExecutiveDesignate.

 

 

427. Maintenance of Assets

 

The Property Manager submitted a report (previouslycirculated) in connection with the planned maintenance of Councilassets.

 

The Audit Commission Use of Resources Key Lines of Enquiry for2007 Assessments examined how the Council had assessed its level ofoutstanding maintenance work, and the systems in place forreporting to Members. The principal objective being to ensure thatresources were in place to maintain assets to at least asatisfactory level. It was suggested that the report be consideredin conjunction with the Council’s Asset Management Plan.

 

The report had been prepared following the Condition Survey ofall Council properties in order to inform the needs of a ten-yearplanned maintenance programme, details of which were given at AnnexA of the report. Each property had been classified into one of fourstandard grading categories e.g. (a) good, (b) satisfactory, (c)poor or (d) bad. With the exception of the Malton TouristInformation Centre, which fell within category (d), all theremaining properties had been categorised (a) or (b). Members werereminded that the Tourist Information Centre was to be re-locatedin the Town Hall as the lease on the existing premises was toexpire in April 2007. Members requested that they be provided withdetails of the financial implications for the Council consequentupon the expiry of the existing lease.

 

Condition Surveys had been used to assess maintenancepriorities i.e. urgent, essential, desirable or long-term, fulldetails of which were outlined in the report. Annex B to the reportoutlined the revenue expenditure and Annex C the capital works2006-2010.

 

428. Local Land Charges - Review of Fees andCharges

 

The Electoral Services & Local Land Charges Managersubmitted a report (previously circulated) the purpose of whichsought approval of the Local Land Charges fees and charges for thefinancial year 2007/2008.

 

The Electoral Services & Local Land Charges Managerreported that in September 2005 the Office of Fair Trading hadpublished their report following a study it had carried out of theproperty search market. The Department of Trade and Industry hadresponded to the report on behalf of the government and issuedguidance on the fees structures to be used by local authorities insetting Local and Charge (LLC) search fees. The guidance beingprepared by CIPFA for implementation on the 1st April 2007 wascurrently awaited.

 

Members were reminded that the government had previously setthe LLC1 fee. However, with effect from 1 April 2007, this feecould now be set by the local authority, subject to the CIPFAguidance.

 

On the 19 January 2007 the Local Land Charges Institute issuedguidance for the setting of fees for both the LLC1 and Con29. Thissuggested that local authorities use the CIPFA Best ValueAccounting Code of Practice until the new guidance waspublished.

 

It was suggested that following receipt of the CIPFAguidelines, it might be necessary to submit a further reportCommittee with an alternative fees structure.

 

The government was also to issue guidance to local authoritieson providing prompt access to all search information, speeding upthe process and setting charges that were fair to consumers as partof the Home Information Packs, which were due to be introduced on 1June 2007.

 

In view of the above changes it had been suggested that LocalLand Charges increase their fees by 3% pending receipt of the CIPFAguidance. The report detailed for information the numbers and typesof searches undertaken at Ryedale.

 

 

429. Items Referred from OtherCommittees/Council

 

There were no referred items to report.

 

430. Exempt Information

 

 

431. Land at Beck Isle Farm, Pickering

 

The Council Solicitor submitted a report (previouslycirculated) the purpose of which was to inform Members of thecurrent situation with regard to the proposed purchase of land atBeck Isle Farm, Pickering.

 

The report outlined the current position with regard tonegotiations for the acquisition of the land, the background andPickering Town Council’s position. Members’ views were sought onwhat, if any, further action should be taken.

 

 

432. Write-Off of Accounts

 

In accordance with the Council Constitution, the write-off ofall outstanding debts relating to Council Tax and Business Ratesabove £500.00 (excluding bankruptcy, receivership, liquidations orvoluntary arrangements) required Committee approval.

 

A list of outstanding debts for Council Tax totalling£17,814.75 and Business Rates totalling £4642.88 was submitted. TheRevenues Manager reported on the action that had been taken priorto submission of the list. Authority was sought to write-off theindividual amounts as irrecoverable.