Thursday, 7 June 2007

Ryedale House, Malton

 

By Invitation: Councillor D Jackson.

 

The Chairman reported that there was one item 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. The item was to be considered under exempt business.

 

 

 

No declarations of interest were made.

 

 

 

Members were reminded that the following Working Parties hadpreviously been appointed by the Committee:

 

(a) Senior Management Contracts Working Party

(b) Budget Working Group

(c) Capital Programme Working Party

(d) Community Investment Fund Panel

(e) Access to Services Programme Board

(f) Planning Review Working Party

(g) Revenues and Benefits Working Party

(h) Leisure Service Contract & Central Ryedale SportsFacility Programme Board

(i) Community Engagement Working Party

 

The Chief Executive circulated a report, which set out thefollowing recommendations:

 

1. That the Budget Working Group, Capital Programme WorkingParty, Access to Services Programme Board, Leisure Service Contract& Central Ryedale Leisure Facility Programme Board, PlanningReview Working Party and the Revenues & Benefits Working Partybe disbanded.

 

2. That the following Working Parties be appointed:

 

3. That the responsibilities and appointment of the CommunityEngagement Working Party be referred to the Community Services& Licensing Committee.

 

Following consideration of the recommendations it was;

 

 

 

 

The Forward Planning & Economic Development Managersubmitted a report (previously circulated) the purpose of which wasto agree the Council’s response to a consultation about theboundaries of the City Regions within the Yorkshire and Humberarea, in particular regarding the boundary of the Leeds City Regionin relation to Ryedale District.

 

Yorkshire Forward had recently agreed to change its approachto investment planning. By April 2009 investment plans were to beproduced for each of the three city regions (Leeds, Sheffield andthe Humber ports), together with the remaining ‘Coastal and rural’area. This differed from the current approach whereby investmentplans were produced for North Yorkshire and for each of the threeformer county areas of Yorkshire and the Humber. Ryedale DC opposedthis move on the basis of a likely detrimental impact on areasoutside the city regions (at present, Ryedale was just outside theLeeds City Region, which extended as far as the eastern boundary ofthe City of York Council area). However, the change had been agreedin April 2007. A subsequent consultation had been received from theYork and North Yorkshire Partnership Executive, a copy of which wasincluded in the report, regarding appropriate boundaries for theinvestment planning areas. This highlighted the need foreconomically rational areas that aligned with the Regional SpatialStrategy.

 

From Ryedale’s point of view, the key area of concern was theboundary of the Leeds City Region (LCR). The LCR excluded Ryedale,however Malton/Norton and southern Ryedale had been included in theYork sub-area of the emerging Yorkshire and Humber Regional SpatialStrategy, and that boundary closely reflected the area-basedapproach in the current Sub-Regional Investment Plan for NorthYorkshire. As York was a key component of the LCR, it was suggestedthat the future LCR boundary should encompass that area around Yorkthat was shown in other planning and economic strategy documents ashaving an important economic relationship with York, and so shouldextend as far east as Malton/Norton.

 

This suggested amendment to the LCR boundary had considerablemerit in terms of alignment with other key planning and economicstrategies for the region and sub-region. This approach was alsolikely to offer the most chance of support for future investmentprojects in Malton/Norton. There would be a resource implication interms of officer and Member attendance at LCR meetings, howeverthis was considered worthwhile given the likely benefits of thisstrategy approach.

 

The consultation also raised the possible inclusion of thenorthern areas of the East Riding within the suggested ‘Coastal andRural’ investment planning area that would cover the locationsoutside the city regions (including Pickering, Helmsley,Kirkbymoorside and northern Ryedale). Officers considered theproposal to have merit, as it would allow a joined-up approach tobe taken towards economic development in the Yorkshire Woldsarea.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Chief Executive circulated a report, which updated Memberson this Council’s and the District Council Network (DCN) responseto the North Yorkshire County Council bid for Unitary Status. Thereport was also to be submitted to the Special meeting of Councilto be held later that day.

 

The report outlined the background together with the currentposition with regard to the County Council’s bid for UnitaryStatus. In addition, the Chief Executive and the Chairman of theCommittee reported on the discussions that had taken place at ameeting of the DCN held earlier in the day.

 

With the exception of Richmondshire District Council, electedrepresentatives from the DCN were to meet with the Minister AngelaSmith on 19 June 2007 to make representations in respect of the DCNview on the County’s proposals. The meeting was to be facilitatedby David Curry MP. Responses were to be sent to the Rt. Hon. RuthKelly MP prior to the deadline of the 22nd June 2007.

 

Ryedale and the DCN had been invited to support the Shrewsbury& Atcham Borough Council’s Judicial review, details of whichwere outlined in the report, together with the potential financialimplications for the Council. Members’ views were sought on theaction to be taken.

 

Members were of the opinion that this Council should supportthe action of Shrewsbury & Atcham Borough Council in pursuing ajudicial review.

 

It was moved and seconded that this Council allocate a budgetof £38,000 in support of the process. An amendment was moved andseconded that this Council limit its budget to a sum of £10,000.Upon being put to the vote the amendment was lost. Upon being putto the vote as the substantive motion it was agreed that thisCouncil allocate a budget of £38,000 in support of the legal actionbeing pursued by Shrewsbury & Atcham Borough Council.