Meeting documents

Thursday, 14 February 2008

Ryedale House, Malton

 

By Invitation of the Chairman: Councillor Mrs Shields.

Ms J Baldwin, Mrs L Carter, Mrs M Jackson, J Patten, J Rudd,Mrs C Slater, D Summers, Miss J Waggott, A Winship and Ms EWoodland.

 

 

The minutes of an Ordinary Meeting of the Policy &Resources Committee held on 6 December 2007 and the minutes of aSpecial Meeting of the Committee held on 3 January 2008 were submitted (previouslycirculated).

 

 

 

 

The Chairman reported that there were two 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.

 

The items related to the renewal of the fire alarm system atthe Milton Rooms, Malton and the appointment of project managementand design team consultants for the Ryedale Enterprise Centre. TheChairman reported that both reports would be considered underexempt business.

 

In addition the Chairman reported that item 15 as shown on theagenda - Disposal of Land and Property - was not exempt and hadbeen re-titled ‘Asset Management Plan’.

 

 

 

The following declarations of interest were received:

 

Item 8 - Councillor Wainwright declared a personal andprejudicial interest as the Vice Chairman of the Rye InternalDrainage Board and also as he farms land likely to flood.

 

Councillor Cottam declared a personal and prejudicial interestin the item relating to the Milton Rooms, as he is the Chairman ofthe Milton Rooms Management Committee.

 

Councillor Andrews declared a personal interest in the MiltonRooms as a member of the Management Committee.

 

 

Appendix 1. (PDF, 116k)

 

The minutes of a reconvened meeting of the Senior ManagementContracts Working Party held on 6 December 2007 were submitted(previously circulated).

 

 

 

Appendix 2. (PDF, 62k)

 

The Forward Planning & Economic Development Managersubmitted a report (previously circulated), which summarised thefindings of the recent Planning Advisory Service (PAS) Diagnosticof the Council’s forward planning activities. In addition, thereport sought authority for the use of additional resourcesidentified to accelerate progress on the production of the RyedaleLocal Development Framework (LDF).

 

The LDF was a key element of Council Strategy and guidedland-use change in the District. It was crucial to achievingseveral corporate objectives, including delivery of affordablehousing and key elements of the Community Strategy. The PASdiagnostic made clear recommendations regarding the need toincrease resources for production of the Council’s LDF. Members hadalso expressed concerns about the rate of LDF progress, given thecurrent staffing and resource levels. Officers had been requestedto investigate the feasibility and costs involved with acceleratingthe LDF process. The Financial Services Manager had identifiedadditional funding for the LDF, which could be combined with thepart-use of the Planning Delivery Grant (PDG) award for relatedprojects, as agreed at the December 2007 meeting of the Committee,to accelerate the LDF timetable set out in the Local DevelopmentScheme.

 

The PAS diagnostic (a copy of which has been emailed to allMembers) recognised many examples of good practise at Ryedale,notably:

It identified the key issues for the Council as being the needto ensure that Member support was maintained and did not wane as aresult of frustration at progress. It noted that progression reliedupon resources and resolving some policy tensions but concludedthat the timescales for the production of the LDF (agreed by thePolicy & Resources Committee in December 2007) could becollapsed if more resources were available.

 

The PAS made ‘Recommendations for action’ by the Council. Interms of resource and staffing issues, the followingrecommendations had been made, in priority order:

PAS also offered three support/training packages, free ofcharge. At least one of these was targeted specifically at Members.Dates for these events were currently being discussed.

 

In response to the above recommendations, and the earlierrequest by the Policy & Resources Committee to investigate howadditional resources might best be used to accelerate delivery ofthe LDF, discussions had taken place with the Corporate ManagementTeam regarding alternative approaches. Consideration ofalternatives had focused on the following four options:

 

 

The Forward Planning & Economic Development Managerreported that a sum of £106,000 was currently available toaccelerate progress on the LDF, details of which were outlined inthe report.

 

Councillor Knaggs welcomed the fact that Officers had takenpart in an independent planning diagnostic process andcongratulated them on the outcome of the report. Councillor Knaggsaccepted the recommendation in the report to support option 3 asoutlined above. However, Councillor Knaggs reported that theCouncil was in the process of seeking to move expenditure so thatit was more closely aligned to key priorities. One of those keypriorities was the planning framework. Councillor Knaggs suggestedthat Officers draw up proposals to secure a dramatic accelerationof the timetable to produce, not just the LDF, but also all theother studies that had to be undertaken. Councillor Knaggs askedthat Officers take his comments on board, and that proposals besubmitted for Members’ consideration in due course.

 

 

 

Appendix 3. (PDF, 61k)

 

The Forward Planning & Economic Development Managersubmitted a report (previously circulated), which summarised thekey issues in the above document and sought agreement of thisCouncil’s response.

 

The North York Moors National Park Authority (NYMNPA) was theLocal Planning Authority for that part of Ryedale within theNational Park. Given the emphasis on spatial planning under the newplanning system and the need to co-ordinate land-use and serviceprovision, it was important that the LDFs for the National Park andDistrict Council were consistent. Comments submitted at this stagewere to be considered by a Planning Inspector when the document wasexamined later in the year. It was appropriate for this Council toprovide a response.

 

The document would be examined against the ‘soundness tests’now enshrined in planning legislation. Conformity with CommunityStrategies and proper regard to other relevant plans, policies andstrategies relating to the area or adjoining areas formed part ofthese tests. It was important that this Council’s response helpedto inform consideration of these issues.

Unlike the development plans of local authorities, thepolicies in those covering National Parks were required to reflectthe specific statutory purposes of the National Park designation.Hence there would always be significant emphasis on theconservation and enhancement of natural beauty, wildlife andcultural heritage within National Parks.

 

It was considered that the key policies in the document thatwere of particular relevance to this Authority were:

Full details of which, were given in the Forward Planning& Economic Development Manager’s report.

 

 

 

Appendix 4. (PDF, 63k)

 

The Performance Manager submitted a report (previouslycirculated) the purpose of which was to consider a response fromthe Council to the Interim Report of the Pitt Review of the summerfloods and for this Council to include within its response theviews of the Land Drainage Liaison Group.

 

Sir Michael Pitt had been requested by ministers to carry outa review of the flood-related emergencies that occurred during thesummer of 2007. The summer flood events were largely the result ofdrains and sewers being unable to cope with sudden and extremerainfall, unlike the flooding from rivers that Ryedale had sufferedover the years.

 

An interim report ‘Learning lessons from the 2007 floods’ hadbeen published in December 2007. A copy of the full report had beenmade available for Members’ inspection. A summary produced by theReview Team was included in the Performance Manager’s report atAnnex A.

 

The report contains 15 recommendations for urgent action toprevent or mitigate flooding and a further 72 interim conclusionsthat required further information and evidence prior to adoption asfirm recommendations in the Final Report. These were also includedwithin Annex A. The Secretary of State for the Environment, HilaryBenn, had accepted the urgent recommendations in the Report. TheReview was to examine costs, benefits and feasibility of theinterim conclusions before making its final report.

 

Many of the recommendations and interim conclusions related tothe Environment Agency and to Local Resilience Forums. However,there was a general expression for a more strategic leadership rolefor local authorities as well as many detailed conclusions thatwill have implications for Councils. Clearly, these had potentialresource implications for councils and for the way in whichcouncils and local agencies worked together.

 

The deadline for comments and further evidence to the Pittreview is 31 March 2008. A final report was to be published thissummer.

 

In considering the report it was moved by Councillor Keal andseconded by Councillor Andrews that the recommendations in thereport be approved subject to the addition of the following:

 

 

Upon being put to the vote the amendment was approved.

 

 

NB Having declared a personal and prejudicial interest in theabove item, Councillor Wainwright withdrew from the meeting andCouncillor Legard took the Chair for consideration of theitem.

 

 

Appendix 5 (PDF, 75k).

 

The Corporate Policy Manager submitted a report (previouslycirculated), which outlined a proposal from North Yorkshire CountyCouncil to establish a credit union for the whole of NorthYorkshire and York, and to inform Members of the request receivedfrom the County Council for a financial contribution towards theproject.

 

In May 2006 the North Yorkshire County Council Executiveendorsed the conclusions of a feasibility study on the potentialdevelopment of a Credit Union in North Yorkshire, but requestedfurther work on costs and that discussions be held with potentialfunding agencies and partner organisations across North Yorkshireand neighbouring authorities.

 

Discussions were held with City of York Credit Union, whichhas agreed in principle to work with North Yorkshire CountyCouncil, but acknowledged that before an extension of the requiredcommon bond could take place, a detailed business case needed to beprepared. The County Council commissioned the Association ofBritish Credit Unions Limited (ABCUL) to undertake the technicalbusiness planning required.

 

The business case report prepared by ABCUL concludes that acredit union for North Yorkshire was a feasible proposition withthe potential for delivering significant economic and socialbenefits to the residents and communities of North Yorkshire,provided its development phase was adequately resourced andsupported. The business case report argued that using York CreditUnion to extend the credit union advantage to the North Yorkshirearea was not only feasible, but the most realistic and costeffective option available. It could be achieved for approximately£420,000 investment over three years. The projections demonstratethat with this level of capitalisation the credit union should besustainable without grant aid within 4 years whilst meetingregulatory requirements.

 

The report outlined the proposed development approach andmanagement arrangements for the credit union.

 

The report concluded that the development of a North Yorkshirewide credit union would seem to be the most feasible way ofdelivering support for the benefit of those more traditionallyexcluded from professional financial services.

 

The Committee strongly supported the establishment of a creditunion. It was noted that two levels of management were proposed,the York and North Yorkshire Advisory Group and the formation ineach area of a Local Credit Union Support Group. The Advisory Groupwould provide strategic and practical support to the growth anddevelopment of the credit union and it was proposed that each ofthe District Councils would be represented on this body. CouncillorAslett sought clarification as to when the appointment was to bemade. The Corporate Policy Manager reported that followinginvestigation a report would be submitted to a futuremeeting.

 

 

 

Appendix 6 (PDF, 58k).

 

The Property Manager submitted a report (circulated at themeeting), which sought approval of the 2007-2009 Asset ManagementPlan (AMP) and amendments to the policy relating to the planneddisposal of surplus land and property.

 

The report informed Members of the background to the AssetManagement process, provided an opportunity to consider thecontents of the Asset Management Plan, determine a disposal policyfor surplus land and property and approve the adoption of theplan.

 

The report outlined the following options for Members’consideration:

 

 

In addition, when surplus land is to be disposed of Membershad an additional option of deciding whether to dispose of the landwith or without planning permission. There are pros and cons tothis approach. It was felt that there could be a better return, ahigher value if the land had planning permission. This had to betaken on merit and weighed up against any possible risk to theCouncil, particularly if the land or property was in a poorcondition. It was recommended that a case-by-case basis be adoptedin order to provide flexibility.

 

In conclusion, it was recommended that a flexible approach beadopted to the disposal of surplus land and property to reflectunique circumstances and changes in the property market. The policysuggested is to agree to the transfer of surplus land and propertyto an appropriate housing association, which would help to deliverthe Council’s priority relating to affordable housing. Where thevalue is less than £100,000 this is delegated to officers inconsultation with the Chairman of Policy & Resources Committee.Where the asset is in excess of £100,000 this is brought to thisCommittee for decision.

 

Members considered the report in detail. It was moved byCouncillor Andrews and seconded by Councillor Aslett “that prior toland and property being declared surplus to requirements, WardMember/s be consulted and given the opportunity to makerepresentations and the option to request that the matter isreferred to the Committee for determination. The Committee acceptedthe amendment.

 

Councillor Keal referred to option 2 and expressed concernregarding the suggestion that capital receipts from the sale ofsurplus land and property be ring-fenced for affordable housing andother housing initiatives. Councillor Keal reported that option 3gave greater flexibility as capital receipts would be used to fundthe capital programme including, but not exclusively for housinguse. It was moved by Councillor Keal and seconded by CouncillorAndrews that Option 3 be approved.

 

Councillor Knaggs reported that the current policy requiredthat surplus land was sold to housing associations, there was noflexibility. Option 2 sought to change that policy and introduceflexibility.

 

Members requested that a recorded vote be taken on theproposal to adopt option 3.

 

Recorded Vote

 

For the motion:

Councillors Andrews, Aslett and Keal (3)

 

Against the motion:

Councillors Acomb, Arnold, Cottam, Knaggs, Legard andWainwright (6)

 

The motion was, therefore, lost.

 

It was moved and seconded that option 2 be adopted subject tothe addition of “subject to the choice remaining that the Councilcan still transfer that land/property to the Housing Associationshould it so wish” and the previous amendment as outlinedabove.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Building Conservation Officer submitted a comprehensivereport (previously circulated), which sought approval, for publicconsultation purposes, of the draft Ampleforth Conservation AreaAppraisal and Management Plan Supplementary Planning Document(SPD).

 

Ampleforth Conservation Area was designated in 1978. At thetime of designation, following common practice at that time, aformal character appraisal was not produced for the ConservationArea.

 

PPG 15 published in 1994 specifies that a Conservation Areadesignation should be justified through the publication of acharacter appraisal. This should define the special architecturalor historic character of the area highlighting those elements thatboth contribute towards, and detract from, the character of thearea. This appraisal should help inform local decision makers suchas property owners, the parish council, highways officers anddevelopment control officers. The character appraisal should alsoformulate proposals for the enhancement of the conservation areaand, where necessary, make recommendations for the introduction offurther controls to help safeguard the area’s special character andsense of place. The attached draft SPD is based on guidelinesissued by English Heritage, the government’s advisor on thehistoric built environment, and satisfies the criteria laid out inPPG15.

 

A comprehensive analysis of the special qualities thatcontribute to the character of the conservation area can help inbetter quality proposals for development and may result in areduction in the amount of officer time spent in negotiations withapplicants. The refusal of unsuitable applications for developmentalso becomes more justifiable with appropriate guidance inplace.

 

The draft SPD has been produced in partnership between theNorth York Moors National Park Authority, Ryedale District Counciland Ampleforth Parish Council.

 

The draft Appraisal comprises 16 sections, which assess theexisting architectural and historic character of the ConservationArea, highlighting both opportunities for enhancement andvulnerabilities within the streetscape. In addition, advice isgiven regarding the design of sympathetic new development. Thedocument also recommends that investigations be made into theserving of an article 4(1) direction in order to preserve theexisting high quality character of the conservation area. This islikely to include the requirement to apply for Planning Permissionfor alterations to publicly visible doors and windows for example.The serving of an article 4(1) direction will be investigated at alater stage and will be a separate process to this currentconsultation concerning the adoption of the Ampleforth ConservationArea Appraisal and Management Plan SPD. There currently exists anArticle 4 (1) Direction in that part of Ampleforth residing in theNational Park but no decisions would be taken on extending thiscontrol into the other part of the conservation area without afuture report to this committee.

 

The recommendation was considered appropriate on the basis ofthe issues highlighted in the report. The SPD would expand therange of conservation area appraisals provided by the Authority,and would include design guidance (as was being strongly encouragedby government), in order to encourage quality, sustainabledevelopment in the future.

 

 

 

Appendix 7. (PDF, 42k)

 

The Tourism Officer submitted a report (previously circulated)in connection with the above. The report had been considered at themeeting of the Community Services & Licensing Committee held on31 January 2008, when it had been resolved:

 

‘That the recommendation be endorsed and that the Policy &Resources Committee be recommended to authorise the transfer of£129,298 from the tourism budget and approve the secondment of theTourism Officers to the Yorkshire Moors and Coast TourismPartnership for the period 2008-13 subject to review in line withfinancial planning as outlined in the report.’

 

Members were of the opinion that the promotion of tourism inRyedale should include Malton. The Council’s policy was to spreadtourism, both seasonally and geographically; it did not seek toincrease the numbers of visitors to the District’s most popularareas.

 

It was moved by Councillor Knaggs that the recommendation beamended by the addition of “on the basis that our Officers willseek to ensure that the strategic review considers Malton as wellas other parts of Ryedale and that the seconded Officers report tothis Council on a regular basis”.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Property Manager submitted a report (previouslycirculated), which sought acceptance of a tender for the aboveworks. Six companies had submitted tenders for the work, the lowestreceived being in the sum of £59,691.98 from Ridings ConstructionCo Ltd. It was recommended that the tender be accepted.

 

 

 

 

The Property Manager submitted a report (previouslycirculated), which sought funding for the renewal of the fire alarmsystem at the Milton Rooms complex in Malton.

 

The report outlined the leasing arrangements for the propertyand reminded Members that the Council’s maintenance liabilitiesextended to the building envelope, with the liability for theinterior being passed to the respective lessees.

 

The complex as a whole was covered by a single fire detectionsystem. Following a recent inspection by the Fire & RescueService, the existing system had been found to be defective.Following an examination it had been established that the systemwas not repairable.

 

 

NB In accordance with the Members’ Code of Conduct, CouncillorCottam declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the aboveitem, as he is the Chairman of the Milton Rooms ManagementCommittee. Councillor Cottam withdrew from the meeting duringconsideration of the item.

 

Councillor Andrews declared a personal interest, as he is amember of the Milton Rooms Management Committee.

 

 

 

The Forward Planning & Economic Development Managersubmitted a report (previously circulated), which sought approvalfor the appointment of project management and design teamconsultants for the Ryedale Enterprise Centre.

 

The Committee was reminded that, at its meeting held on 18September 2007, the Resources Working Party had resolved torecommend to the Policy & Resources Committee that:

 

(d) That delegated authority be given to procure serviceproviders, consultants, contractors or development partnering inrelation to the Ryedale Enterprise Centre, subject to the approvalof the Chief Financial Officer and also as detailed in thereport.

 

(e) That a waiver of Standing Orders such that the procurementof service providers, consultants, contractors or developmentpartners in relation to the Ryedale Enterprise Centre project canbe undertaken using Office of Government Commerce FrameworkContracts, Yorkshire Forward’s Consultants Panel, or other suchappropriately tendered framework contract as appropriate.

 

The Policy & Resources Committee had subsequently endorsedthe recommendations.

 

The report outlined the action that had been taken consequentto the above decisions.

 

 

 

NB Councillors Andrews and Aslett recorded their votes againstthe above decision.

 

 

 

The Revenues Manager submitted lists (circulated at themeeting) of outstanding Council Tax and Business Rates. Authoritywas sought to write off the individual amounts asirrecoverable.