A resident has written to us about rowdy behaviour in the City Centre this weekend.
Its an issue that has grown in recent years and one that will tarnish the City’s image unless addressed by the authorities.
Firm action is now required.
Next Saturday seeks a local derby football match in the City. That may put additional pressures on policing resources.
The timing of the match doesn’t look to be particularly enlightened.
Organised by Foxwood Residents Association
The motion, which will be discussed on Thursday, fails to identify which journeys would be classified as “essential” mentioning only special arrangements for disabled people. Although ostensibly positioned as a response to climate change, there is no mention of exceptions for electric cars. Taxis and mopeds also don’t figure in the plan.
The proposal is a simple attack on the idea of personal transport use.
Restricting traffic movement within the “City Walls” is not a new idea. In the past though, advocates of the introduction of a Low Emission Zone have usually referred to the area within the inner ring road as a starting point. The Labour plan would also ban cars from using the inner ring road between its junctions with Rougier Street and Bootham.
Labour have shied away from such restrictions in the past not least because of the increasing number of people who now live in the City centre.
They changed their policy in 2012 when they tried to restrict movements on Lendal Bridge using ANPR camera enforcement. This proved to be hugely unpopular and ultimately impractical.
A 24/7 ban would go much further. Two (Lendal and Ouse) bridges would become inaccessible. Shoppers with bulky goods would look elsewhere. It would potentially destroy many city centre businesses.
Traffic congestion elsewhere in the City would increase.
The motion is based on the premise that – in addition to encouraging more people to walk and cycle – it is possible to ramp up the public transport system to the point where it becomes the mode of choice for residents for 24 hours a day. Maybe so but forcing people to use an overcrowded, expensive and – off peak – infrequent bus service looks particularly half-baked as the country enters a period financial uncertainty.
Of course, the proposal may be a bluff aimed at scaring drivers into accepting the implications of a low emissions zone, with the extra costs that congestion charging would entail.
Such a move would be naive given that most harmful vehicle emissions come from buses (an issue being addressed by the Council and operators) and commercial vehicles.
Strangely Labour have so far not supported making the York Central development part of an ultra-low emission zone although there is the opportunity there to design in alternative transport options from the off.
The Councils own fleet is 90% dependent on diesel power. Climate change activists might want to direct their attention there before targeting residents who simply value the convenience and security offered by personal transport.
This motion was one of the items that the Council decided not to publish before Thursday’s General Election vote.
Had they not done so, then the local Labour vote might have reduced even further.
NB. The motion also advocates banning motor vehicles from roads near all primary schools at drop off and pick up times. That will be easier said than done, we think.
An independent pay review panel is recommending substantial pay increases for York Councillors.
Under the proposals, basic pay would rise from £9198 to £10,371 pa (13%). This element of pay has already seen rises in line with inflation each year since 2015.
In addition, major increases are lined up for those Councillors who are judged to have additional responsibilities. Their “SRAs” haven’t been increased since 2015 and have fallen behind inflation.
The Council Leader will receive £41,484 when his SRA is added to his basic pay.
The biggest (50%) increase in SRAs is reserved for the Chairs of the Scrutiny Management, Area Planning, Licensing and Audit Committees.
The proposed increases are revealed in a report to next weeks full Council meeting. The publication of the report was delayed until after voting in the General Election had concluded.
The plans would see taxpayers having to find £770,000 a year to fund the payments.
The proposals are bound to be controversial, not least because some of the evidence, submitted to the panel to justify the rises, doesn’t seem to stand up to scrutiny.
NB. Some Councillors may also receive other payments as a result of their membership of national, regional and sub regional bodies.
The team at City of York Council’s Register Office has raised £6,000 for the Special Care Baby Unit (SCBU) at York Hospital thanks to the generosity of new parents in the city.
Parents registering a birth are offered a folder in which to keep their new baby’s birth certificate. The folders are supplied free to the office so that every penny of the donations for them from the public goes towards supporting SCBU’s work with ill or premature babies.
The Register Office team, which also offers a death registration service at York Hospital Bereavement Suite and attends a local Sure Start centre to register births, has raised over £39,000 in the last decade.
Amanda Sykes, York Register Office Manager said: “We are delighted that our partnership with the Special Care Baby Unit is continuing to help ill and premature babies across the city.
“This is only made possible through the generosity of our visitors so I would like to thank everyone who has donated. Through our work we get a glimpse into the brilliant work of the Special Care Baby Unit so to raise over £35,000 in the past decade is amazing.”
Sister Beth Howarth from the Special Care Baby Unit said: “We are unbelievably appreciative of this generous gift and would like to say a massive thank you. Donations of any size allow us to go that extra mile for our families at what can be a difficult time. This wonderful donation will allow us to purchase additional equipment which otherwise would not be able to happen; so thank you.”
Council staff face a long day at the polling stations today. Its a 7:00am – 10:00pm shift for many. Later some will be helping to count votes. A declaration of a result may not come until 3:00am or even later.
So it is not surprising that the agenda for the Council meeting taking place on 19th December is, shall we say, a little thin.
There are virtually no reports attached to the agenda. Notices of motion are not published (other than the general topic heading) and executive member reports are missing.
Perhaps most difficult to explain may be a missing report for the remuneration panel. This independent body recommends how much Councillors should be paid. Its recommendations are often controversial. The report must already be available so someone must have taken a decision not to publish it.
There are two possible explanations for the missing papers.
The first is that staff and Councillors have been overwhelmed by the election workload. In which case someone may ask why the Council meeting was not postponed..
The second could be that the Council has decided that publishing the above reports could have been viewed as conflicting with the “Purdah” period. “Purdah” regulations prevent local authorities, and government departments, from publishing anything that might influence an election result.
If the explanation is the latter the the authority would be wise to ensure that the reports are published tomorrow.
It must give taxpayers a reasonable time to assess what is being proposed.
The reason for the absence of the background papers should have been n clearly stated on the agenda
& it really is time for that the Council got round to appointing a new Chief Executive!
There is a large seating space allocated for the general public.
The sessions recommence at 9.00am on Monday when the Green Belt boundaries are likely to be considered at length.
This week the inquiry has mainly considered the position of several land owners and developers all of whom are desperate for their particular track of land to be zoned for house building. Such a designation can raise values by over 100x so not surprisingly those vested interests are well represented by professionals. Millions of pounds are at stake.
Ranged against them is the York Council as its advisors. It will defend the assumptions included in the Local Plan which has taken over a decade to be drawn up.
Actively involved in the debate will be amenity societies, Councillors and ordinary residents. Many will make the case for the conservation of green areas pointing to the importance of the existing Green Belt in preserving York’s unique character.
At times, such inquires can be tedious and repetitive.
Although the proceedings are not being live web cast, the Council is making a recording available on https://www.youtube.com/user/cityofyorkcouncil
This important meeting has been overshadowed by the General Election and the forthcoming Christmas season.
It would be unfortunate, to say the least, if anything slipped through unchallenged which the City as a whole might regret later in the year.
Further details about the examination can be found here https://www.york.gov.uk/LocalPlanExamination
