Planning Committee

121

Council

19th January, 2017

PRESENT:- The Lord Mayor (in the Chair). Deputy Lord Mayor (D. C.); Councillor J. F. Abbott, Councillor P. Allen, Councillor S. J. Bayes, Councillor A. K. Bell, Councillor J. A. Black, Councillor M. Brabazon, Councillor S. Brady, Councillor H. Bridges, Councillor D. Brown, Councillor L. Chambers, Councillor A. Clark, Councillor P. D. Clark, Councillor C. A. Clarkson, Councillor J. Conner, Councillor M. Coward, Councillor D. A. Craker, Councillor A. M. Dorton, Councillor J. L. Fareham, Councillor A. D. Gardiner, Councillor T. Geraghty, Councillor M. E. Glew, Councillor D. R. Hale, Councillor D. Hatcher, Councillor A. Harrison, Councillor H. Herrera- Richmond, Councillor C. Inglis, Councillor R. M. Jones, Councillor T. E. Keal, Councillor R. Langley, Councillor G. Lunn, Councillor M. C. Mancey, Councillor K. E. Mathieson, Councillor D. J. McCobb, Councillor M. H. O'Mullane, Councillor R. Pantelakis, Councillor C. E. Payne, Councillor R. D. Payne, Councillor L. M. Petrini, Councillor C. Quinn, Councillor J. Robinson, Councillor M. J. Ross, Councillor H. J. Spencer, Councillor C. A. Sumpton, Councillor C. Thomas, Councillor D. Thompson, Councillor M. Thompson, Councillor L. Tock, Councillor K. W. Turner, Councillor P. J. Webster, Councillor A. Williams and Councillor S. Wilson. APOLOGIES:- Councillor J. Dad, Councillor L. Fudge, Councillor N. Fudge and Councillor J. I. Korczak Fields.

Minute Description/Decision Action No. By/Deadline PROCEDURAL ITEMS COUNCILLORS LEANNE AND NADINE FUDGE

The Lord Mayor passed on the condolences of those present in the Chamber to Councillors Leanne and Nadine Fudge and family following their recent sad loss.

HONORARY ALDERMAN BETTY HEWITT

The Lord Mayor passed on the best wishes of those present in the Chamber to Honorary Alderman Betty Hewitt for a full recovery from her recent illness.

73 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST Members and Council 122

Councillor Petrini declared a personal interest in Information minute 82, insofar as her husband owned property Team Leader in the City.

Councillor Hale declared a personal interest in minute 82, insofar as he was a Council appointed Director of Kingstown Works Limited.

Councillor Hale declared a personal interest in minute 89, insofar as he was employed as a Care Quality Commission Manager.

74 MINUTES

Agreed – That the minutes of the meeting of the City Council, held on 17th November, 2016, having been printed and circulated, be taken as read and correctly recorded and be signed by the Lord Mayor.

75 COMPOSITION OF POLITICAL GROUPS

The Town Clerk reported that there had been no changes to the composition of the political groups within the City Council.

Agreed – That the report be noted.

76 MEMBERSHIP OF COMMITTEES AND JOINT Paul Rawcliffe COMMITTEES

Moved by Councillor Sumpton and seconded by Councillor Quinn:

Overview and Scrutiny Management Committee – Councillor M. Thompson replaces Councillor Chaytor.

Energy and Infrastructure Overview and Scrutiny Commission – Councillor Dad replaces Councillor Quinn as Deputy Chair.

People and Communities Overview and Scrutiny Commission – Councillor Quinn replaces Councillor Dad as Deputy Chair.

Motion carried.

123

77 APPOINTMENT OF AN HONORARY FREEMAN Paul Rawcliffe OF THE CITY OF KINGSTON UPON HULL

The Lord Mayor referred to minute 27 of the Civic Committee when the nomination of Sir Tom Courtenay to be appointed as an Honorary Freeman of the City of Kingston upon Hull, had been referred to Council for consideration.

Moved by Councillor Chaytor and seconded by Councillor Sumpton:

That the nomination of the Civic Committee, to appoint Sir Tom Courtenay as an Freeman of the City of Kingston upon Hull, be agreed.

Motion carried.

78 PETITIONS

The Town Clerk reported that he had not received any petitions that needed to be considered by the City Council.

Agreed – That the report be noted.

79 LEADER’S STATEMENT

The Leader began his statement by thanking the City Council’s staff for their continued hard work and dedication. He then commented on the success of the first week of the City of Culture; the fireworks display on 1 st January, 2017; the new feeling of togetherness in the City; the well-attended and seamlessly organised City of Culture events; the turbine blade installation in Queen Victoria Square; the opening of the refurbished Ferens Art Gallery; the work of elected members, the City of Culture Team and Hull Culture and Leisure Limited in bidding for, winning and organising the City of Culture; devolution for Hull; the reduction in the number of people claiming Job Seekers Allowance and Universal Credit in the City, and the Labour Group’s plan for continuous improvement and investment in the City.

Councillor Fareham replied to the Leader’s Statement and began by thanking the City Council’s 124

staff for doing a good job. He then commented on that no Councillor should override what they have responsibility for; the turbine blade installation in Queen Victoria Square; that people should undertake their job properly and impartially and offer no preferential treatment; the proposed Combined Yorkshire Authority with a single Mayor; the need for full devolution for the Yorkshire Region, and the Boundary Commission’s recent report on the City’s Ward Boundaries.

Councillor Ross replied to the Leader’s Statement and commented on the excellent start to and the City owning the City of Culture year; the turbine blade installation in Queen Victoria Square; the Liberal Democrat Group’s continued support of the City of Culture; the City Council’s 2017/18 Budget; apparent differences of opinion within the Labour Group; the future of Nicholson House, and the public’s seeming mistrust of the current Labour Administration .

Agreed – That the Leader’s Statement, and the responses to that Statement, be noted.

80 QUESTIONS (WITH WRIT TE NOTICE) TO THE LEADER OF THE COUNCIL, MEMBERS OF THE CABINET, CHAIRS OF COMMITTEES AND OTHERS

Councillor Glew asked the Portfolio Holder: City Plan Enabler – Culture and Leisure, given the phenomenal success of the re-opening of the Ferens Art Gallery last week, which saw over 500 people through the doors in half an hour and thousands over the first weekend, was he pleased the Labour Council took the decision to invest in our facilities?

The Portfolio Holder: City Plan Enabler – Culture and Leisure replied that he was very pleased with what had happened over the last weekend, anybody would be who supported culture and leisure. When he received the question from Councillor Glew he thought he would look back and see what the situation was that Labour had inherited and frankly he was absolutely amazed. He would not like to be a goalkeeper in the Liberal Democrat’s team because they would have that many own goals it 125 was incredible. Some of the resolutions that had been put forward by Councillor Ross were absolutely absurd. When Councillor Ross’s party took over they had no chance, absolutely no chance of being the Year of Culture. No chance. That was because the Liberal Democrats had cut back. The Liberal Democrats had cut back on a situation where in today’s terms when they had lost £130 million over the last four years, they were very prosperous really under the Labour Government. The Liberal Democrats were getting 5% increases; they had grants, and all of a sudden there was former Councillor Minns, who was then the Leader and after all half of them had said they did not know what was going on. Nobody attended a Cabinet meeting once. There was only former Councillor Minns. That’s what he had been told. The fact was the Liberal Democrats wanted to cut £250,000 out of museums and the Ferens Art Gallery. The Liberal Democrats had also cancelled a marketing budget and therefore Labour had to swan ar ound when they came in to look at how to market those products. So looking at what was in their minds, there was no doubt about it because the Portfolio Holder had received a letter at the time where the Liberal Democrats were going to privatise the whole of the culture and leisure services. That was a fact. The Liberal Democrats were in denial. The fact was the Liberal Democrats were looking at not only privatising but they were also looking at charging as well for the use of museums and the Ferens Art Gallery. That was on the Liberal Democrats agenda. No doubt about it because he had looked it up. There had been a recent visit from a well-known Tory area of Norfolk to our premises and especially the Ferens Art Gallery. They said what a wonderful service the City had. He agreed with Councillor Glew, that if this Administration had not taken over four years ago, then it would not be in the position it was today. Hull was now one of the leading cities as far as culture was concerned.

Councillor Tock asked if the Chair of the Park Area Committee shared Councillor Wilson’s view that the closure and renting out of Nicholson House was ‘great news’?

The Chair of the Park Area Committee replied that she had too much respect for Councillor Tock to take this question as just a cheap party political 126

point scoring exercise. She took it seriously. She had spoken to Councillor Wilson and he had told her that he had first visited the Nicholson House in 1993, when he was on the Humberside County Council, and had found it wanting even then. Since then the Council had acquired it and although money had been spent on it was never really up to scratch. Her understanding was that gradually people had voted with their feet and families had decided to go elsewhere. She was quite sure that as the population in that building had run down, people who had not wanted to go, was a very small number of residents in quite a large building. She was sure from first-hand knowledge that people and families had been treated with the utmost care, compassion, respect and sensitivity on moving them on. It had not been a ‘rush job’. So now they had a building that was in the process of being decommissioned. If the underlying question was concern from Councillor Tock about adult social cuts then she knew how Councillor Tock felt. She had brought those issues to the Area Committee so that members, particularly those in the Holdern ess Ward, might want to make themselves aware of the impact of cuts in Adult Social Care, and what she might want to do about it in her Area, given there was an ageing population. She hoped that that would help Councillor Tock in some way to understand a bit more. The path for what was going on with Adult Social Care was laid in 2010 with the Coalition Government when it decided that was the route it was going to go on and that the vulnerable, the disabled, the sick and the poor should really pay the price. That was decided then. Since then it was not a secret how people were suffering and in this City. It was not a wealthy City, doing great with City of Culture, Siemens, etc. but there was not a lot going for many people. So that path that was laid went right on for so many people to the road to Hell. If that was what Councillor Tock was concerned about she hoped Councillor Tock would do a little bit more about it.

Councillor A. Clark asked if the Leader of the Council could give any further update on devolution for this region?

The Leader of the Council replied that going on further from devolution it seemed rather strange that Councillor Fareham said Yorkshire was too big for 127 one person, when Donald Trump had been elected in America to run the whole of America. He thought if you looked at the population of London, there had been two or three very successful mayors in their own way and the amount of investment that they had been able to bring in. He knew it was much easier obviously being Mayor of London than Mayor of a Northern region. He went on to explain that some of the problems at the present time were nothing to do with anybody in East Yorkshire or North Yorkshire or Leeds. In effect Sheffield went ahead and did a deal that was accepted by the Government and that was still on the table. He thought that the Government expected that agreement to remain so it was just the explanation really, carrying on the explanation as to what the situation was at the present time. The Sheffield deal, although there was some court procedure by individual Councils or complaints that it was not acceptable, was nothing to do with Hull. The position would have been for the full, wider Yorkshire and he believed that was the right thing to do. From that there was the rest of Yorkshire, which was the main part of Yorkshire that could have done a deal. Really it was stopped in its tracks by the West Yorkshire Combined Authority that had had their working relationship for a long, long time. Maybe a little bit more tho ught should have been put into the new aspects of devolution. That was sometimes hard for Councils to accept when they had had those close working relationships and wanted to carry on that way. He thought that views were shifting and he hoped that everybody would come together to achieve a sensible solution in the future.

Councillor C. E. Payne asked if the Deputy Leader and City Plan Enabler: Finance, Land and Property and Change would explain how rooms in Nicholson House ended up for rent on Zoopla before it was discussed by Scrutiny or a decision taken by the Leader?

The Deputy Leader and City Plan Enabler: Finance, Land and Property and Change replied that he would give the generosity of spirit that people seldom showed him and assumed that this was asked in the intention of genuinely getting to the bottom of the issues raised. He would also do so in the belief that the email he had sent out to all 128

members was received after the question had been already tabled. What he had said quite clearly in the email to members was that there were two issues here. The fact that Nicholson House as a facility for older people was effectively empty. So the political decision therefore was whether that was codified from a human resources point of view; whether they allowed the staff therefore to be redeployed, and whether any of those that wanted to take voluntary early termination could do so. That was the issue. Once a service that happened to operate in a building had gone it was about stamping that that was accepted and that there was an HR process to be followed. What that in this case would have led to was a building which was already empty. That was it, because the residents had gone so the building was already empty. From the point of view of the City Property and Assets Manager’s area of the Council and the Portfolio Holder, was about what should then be done to secure and safeguard the building while it was empty. What Labour had already done, as would be imagined, was they had security in that building pending that decision which they were paying for and quite rightly you had to pay for people to be in a building overnight. What the Council often did was sought to put property guardians in buildings. There were some in a range of other buildings around the City which he would not necessarily name for obvious reasons, because it left those buildings more vulnerable. Labour did so on the basis that people on a very short term, very, very short term rent, were paid a few bob to stay overnight in the building and therefore they dispensed with the need for overnight security. Rather than paying to keep the building empty Labour was effectively letting a building ‘wash its face’ in terms of at least it was not costing anything while the final decision was being made. That was what was being proposed. So, any attempt to conflate the two and pretend that housing was being let out, effectively council housing, was wrong. The Council could not just let housing that was not fit for purpose or needed an upgrade. What the Council could do was temporarily let facilities out where people could effectively act as property guardians and secure them. If only the journalist who had left that Cabinet meeting had spoken to the Portfolio Holder whom she had walked past in the corridor, and sought that information, it would have been in the Hull Daily Mail. You needed to ask the journalist 129 why they had chosen to walk past the Portfolio Holder and not clarify that situation at the time. He was absolutely convinced that the Leader’s statement, that no-one would be moved against their will, and that people would choose to leave any facility on a Labour’s watch, was absolutely adhered to. There was no report on this from this Administration saying that the floods provided an excuse for them to shut this facility down like the Liberal Democrats had over Rokeby. Not on Labour’s watch. They were a caring compassionate Labour Council and there was nothing at all for them to worry about with the decisions that Labour had taken, compared to the Group opposite.

Councillor O’Mullane asked if the Deputy Leader and City Plan Enabler: Finance, Land and Property and Change agreed that the way this Government had gone about funding Adult Social Care was simply wrong, ignored the growing problems of how essential services support other services and risked replacing our National Health Service with Local Health Services that resembled a ‘post code lottery’ in terms of funding?

The Deputy Leader and City Plan Enabler: Finance, Land and Property and Change replied that Councillor O’Mullane was so right. What a terrible way to fund services to the most vulnerable people in the community. It was fundamentally wrong to use a precept levy on the Council Tax. It was obviously why, and even the Local Government Association (LGA), the old party LGA, that he thought was led by Conservatives, said why it was wrong because Council Tax was a property tax and it was based on the value of your property. So, that 1% in Hull brought in a different sum to 1% in York, 1% in North Yorkshire, and 1% in the East Riding. When you got down South to London it brought in an astronomical amount of more money than in Hull. That was the reality because the average prices in Hull meant there was a disproportionately large number of Band A properties. Effectively the people in poorer cities were being asked to pay a bigger burden and a bigger share of their income that they did not have towards vital services. There was greater need because obviously less people in Hull in terms of Adult Social Care paid the top half because of those poor wages they traditionally earn. 130

They did not have to pay as much towards their care so they lost in places like Hull all ends up by exercising the precept, which was why later he was hoping, politics aside here, that there would be unanimity in supporting a motion that said this was not the right way. There needed to be a strategic review of the funding of Adult Social Care because it was not just about Adult Social Care it was about the Health Service. When Adult Social Care sneezed, the NHS caught a cold. Lots of the problems with the NHS in the newspapers, in terms of Accident and Emergency Departments being rammed to capacity; people on beds in corridors, and people not being to get beds on Wards, were because of the Adult Social Care crisis. A resident from the Boulevard had telephoned him to say that his dad was in hospital in Louth, he had a place to move to but the Council would not sign it off so what could he do? Members knew what that was about didn't they, because when this man was in hospital that local authority, Lincolnshire County Council, were not paying. As soon as the man was out there the local authority were paying, so of course there was a ‘clogging’ and a delay. That was the Adult Social Care crisis in a richer shire, Tory Council down the road. So it was not just Hull it was all over and that was the reality of the situation. Adult Social Care needed to be funded properly but they were between a rock and a hard place in Hull. What should Labour do? Should they stick to their principles? There was a choice. Should they stick to their principles while they waited for a better funding settlement that might never come from Central Government? So, reluctantly, Labour would be proposing next month to levy the 3% precept here. He would do so, but he really regretted having to do so. He knew, like all members in the Chamber did, it was not right. The Council faced leaving vulnerable people high and dry. Had Labour followed the Liberal Democrat Party opposite last year with their grubby little attempts to win popularity by not sticking the Council Tax up and the precepts up last year, that Adult Social Care burden in Hull would have been £1.4 million less last year? Of course that was in the base so they would be another £3 million light this year, so hopefully he was doing the right thing this year but the Liberal Democrats should not be playing politics with old people’s lives.

131

Councillor Coward asked the Portfolio Holder : City Plan Enabler: Council Infrastructure, she had received a number of reports recently about home repairs taking a long time. In one case a young lady with children had to wait six days in winter for a boiler to be fixed. What could be done to ensure such repairs were carried out more quickly?

The Portfolio Holder: City Plan Enabler: Council Infrastructure replied that he was sorry that the tenant had apparently found themselves in those circumstances. He had no doubt whatsoever in making that apology. He did not know the timelines involved or the individual case so he just spoke generally. The contractor at the moment was having difficulties with sickness and the 24 hours for dealing with those repairs had been extended to 48 hours. With joint working he was hoping that that could soon be put right. There were many examples in this area where they did prioritise to give people a quick service when they found themselves in those circumstances. He had examples where people contacted him on a Friday, where beyond the call of duty, staff working together went out of the City to pick a part up so that they could get someone’s heating on particularly where there were children at a weekend. He was sorry for this case. He did not know the individual details. If anybody had any cases like that and they were not getting the matter dealt with, particularly when it was a priority case, that was people with children; the elderly, or where there was no other form of heating, they should contact him. In general they responded to those things very quickly. Like he had just said, that even meant people going outside the City to pick parts up. It was not just the attending and the fixing of the problem, but collecting a part if those parts were not in stock. Generally everything went well but just at the moment there were one or two problems which he was absolutely sure would be ironed out very quickly.

Councillor Herrera-Richmond asked the Chairman of the Hull History Centre Board of Management how the History Centre was helping to celebrate the City of Culture?

The Chairman of the Hull History Centre Board of Management thanked Councillor Herrera-Richard for 132

the question. Councillor Herrera-Richard was a valued colleague on the Board at the History Centre as was Councillors Robinson and O’Mullane, all of whom helped deliver a good service. The basic work was underpinning much of the work for other organisations. So, if anybody wanted to know what happened in Hull; anybody wanted pictures; if anybody wanted any other details of the rich history of Hull, the History Centre supplied those answers, just as had been said by Martin Green, Chief Executive of the City of Culture 2017 at the launch of the Hull Charter exhibition. This was the first of the History Centre exhibitions that they were being putting on to try and encourage greater awareness of civic pride of this great City. As Councillor Inglis had rightly reminded him, Councillor Geraghty, Councillor Inglis and he actually had their names up there so they were already part of history rather than the present it would appear. That was one of the first events of the year for the City of Culture. He anticipated, in the future, if he could help Councillor Herrera-Richmond who he knew had been very helpful in the question, supporting other exhibitions. They had their very own exhibition and lecture programmes themselves, many of which were very popular at lunch times, and were attracting increasing numbers of people. There were a number of issues. The History Centre needed to look at getting more, and he knew that Councillor Herrera-Richmond and himself had discussed that, display cases so that they could actually make better use of that wonderful pioneering and innovative building that they all worked so closely with the University to develop. It was still an exemplar with the Heritage Lottery Fund. A classic example of what this City Council could achieve with cross party unity when everyone pulling together. The History Centre was core to the understanding of th e history of this great City that so many people had chosen to live in; to come to, and to stay and to try and serve, a classic example of all that is great and good about this City. You could not understand where you were going and you could not understand what it was that you were planning to do if you did not know where you had come from and where you were going. That was the theme the Lord Mayor was graciously minded to comment on when he opened the Charter exhibition. It was also the recurring theme for Martin Green and himself. He thanked Councillor Herrera-Richard for the 133 question and he thanked all his colleagues in the Chamber for the support for the History Centre which they had shown now and in the past.

Councillor Williams asked the Portfolio Holder: City Plan Enabler – Culture and Leisure, if there was currently a number of locations across the City where Hull Culture and Leisure (HCAL) claimed it was the Council’s responsibility and the Council that it was HCAL's to empty litter bins? Would the Portfolio Holder put pressure on HCAL to work more closely with the Council to ensure that litter bins were emptied?

The Portfolio Holder: City Plan Enabler – Culture and Leisure replied that did Councillor Williams not talk to his colleagues because the Liberal Democrats had a member on the HCAL Board, Councillor Keal? Surely, it would be appropriate if Councillor Williams had any problems in that direction he should talk to Councillor Keal? He did not know if there was any dialogue going on between them but certainly HCAL were responsible for what they did in the parks. Anything outside the parks was Streetscene’s responsibility, and not HCAL’s. If Councillor Williams had any problems in that direction would he let Councillor Keal know and Councillor Keal could bring it to the HCAL Board.

Councillor Craker asked if the Leader of the Council agreed about the success of the opening of our time as City of Culture and what did the Leader think about one of his Ward colleague’s opposition to including reference to this and the magnificent public realm works that were coming to conclusion now, in our Sutton Ward newsletter?

The Leader of the Council replied that he understood and knew what the question was. It referred to a local article from a newsletter that was blocked by a Liberal Democrat colleague in Councillor Craker’s Ward that wanted to put in the good news about the City Centre. They were told by the Area Office that the Ward newsletter could not go out because of the objections from the Liberal Democrats. Absolutely disgraceful. Actually he had stepped in and ordered the newsletter to go out. There was only good news about the Area that the Councillors wanted to put out and inform the 134

residents what was going on in the City, what the good news was. It was just shameful that Councillor Craker’s supposed Ward colleague had objected to it.

Councillor Quinn asked the Portfolio Holder: Neighbourhoods and Communities, the Council had blocked all requests to install new grit bins in Kings Park ward for over a year. Given how dangerous pavements could be this time of year, particularly for older people, why would the Council have stopped investing in such a cheap and effective way of helping people to get about?

The Portfolio Holder: Neighbourhoods and Communities replied that before he actually answered he just wanted to quote Councillor Ross, what he had said this morning. ‘Your own Party does not know what is going off’. It was extremely relevant because this question actually belonged to the Portfolio Holder: Energy City, not to him.

Councillor Jones asked the Portfolio Holder: Energy City, the recently completed widening of the road layout outside HRI had made a significant improvement to traffic problems in the area; what other improvements were planned to tackle congestion in the City, and was road widening a realistic or achievable approach in other locations?

The Portfolio Holder: Energy City replied that first of all he would say that he had had a significant number of positive comments about the benefits that had been derived from the improvement outside HRI. He wished it would be possible to deal with numerous similar pinch points on the road network. Indeed the Administration would be seeking funding for such improvements on every possible occasion. What he would point to was Park Street bridge. Dealing with the weight limit on Park Street bridge was currently underway which would be another improvement and a particularly vital improvement in advance of the Castle Street works. Those works would of course result in a number of traffic problems in the City. Having Park Street bridge improved would go some way towards, at least in part, alleviating some of those problems. Beyond that as some members would know, there had been 135 a study carried out of the Stoneferry Road Corridor and the Administration was looking for funding for those improvements. To answer the question he thought in terms of those improvements that were deliverable, the Administration would continue to work on them. The fundamental point he would make was that road widening, as referred to in the question from Councillor Jones, was proven generally, nationally, not to deal the alleviation of congestion. Massive road widening schemes had just proved a failure in city centre environments in the past because all they did was encourage more private cars into the City Centre with the associated pollution and congestion that that caused.

Councillor Keal asked if the Chair of the Health and Social Well-Being Overview and Scrutiny Commission had asked Councillor Brady ‘what the bloody hell is going on’ about the sale of Nicholson House? If yes, what was the answer given?

The Chair of the Health and Social Well-Being Overview and Scrutiny Commission replied that actually the Leader was not in the country at the time. He had taken it up straight away with the Deputy Leader, and he believed the Liberal Democrats had had a full answer to that question.

Councillor Harrison asked if the Portfolio Holder: Neighbourhoods and Communitie s could update the Chamber on the progress in buying the land at Holderness Drain from Crown Estates?

The Portfolio Holder: Neighbourhoods and Communities replied that as it stood at the moment an offer had been made via the Environment Agency for a joint land acquisition with the East Riding of Yorkshire Council and this Council which had been accepted by Crown Estates. As it stood so they were still going through the negotiation stage of securing that, but funding had been made available for the scheme through the Environment Agency, through the Local Growth Fund. So everything was on track and it would remain on track. He looked forward to making sure that the Chamber knew when the Council had bought it. He would look to invite all members on site when they had made some progress, so they could have a bit more of an in depth look at the vision of what was going on. The 136

City Council had brought in a large number of outside organisations as well, such as the Yorkshire Wildlife Trust and the RSPB. There was a whole plethora of others who were also looking at fetching monies and infrastructure into this project. The main goal of this was, and he had always reiterated this and it had been backed up by Councillor Fraser of the East Riding of Yorkshire Council, that this could not cost the Council any money. At the end of the day, with ongoing costs that had been agreed by everybody round the table, he thought would be a fantastic addition not just to the City but to the area itself. He really hoped that this could get moving a lot quicker than it had been. To be honest it was moving quite quickly and he was quite excited about the whole project.

Councillor Ross asked the Leader of the Council, on 10 th May, 2011, the Leader was reported in the Hull Daily Mail as saying: “Labour in Hull has a history of defending day centres and old people's homes and we made a commitment that these places would remain open under our budget proposals.” Since then the Leader and the Labour Party in Hull had repeated that promise numerous times in the Party’s election leaflets, press articles, on the radio and in meetings of the Council. On 16 th January, 2017, a member of Council staff was reported in the Hull Daily Mail as saying: "He might play around with words and say no- one from Nicholson House was 'evicted' but the home was wound down for months before they told the truth about it closing. The families of the six residents left didn't have any choice but to move out." Given that the Leader has so clearly broken a central promise made to every Labour voter in the City since 2011, did the Leader now plan to do the honourable thing and resign?

The Leader of the Council replied that he really sometimes wondered with the Liberal Democrats and they had the cheek to ask those sort of questions. The Liberal Democrats had ended up in the High Court over evicting people from Rokeby House. From the time Labour had come in to power in 2011, six years had passed and in the first few months actually there had been a home shut in Bransholme. The Administration totally accepted that. The reason was that there were two residents 137 there who wanted to move out and were moving into far superior accommodation. When they moved out the building was shut. Absolutely. From the off on that one this Administration always said that they would not take in more care residents into the Council homes. That was said from the off, but what they would do was retain and give those residents respect. In every case and he knew because he, along with officers, sat down, thought long and hard, and made sure that every bit of care was taken in talking to the last few residents in Nicholson House, and making sure that those residents were going into superior, far superior accommodation to what they had at that present time. On the basis that the building itself had many problems, he did not want to see any residents suffering through that. Very careful care went in over a very long time and it reached a very satisfactory conclusion. Going back to 2010, or whenever it was, the most appalling incident occurred under the Liberal Democrats. It was in the national newspapers. It was an absolute disgrace. When the Liberal Democrats said that he should resign over that, well absolutely not. If the Liberal Democrats had paid the same care and attention to those individuals and showed that they cared for the people in the City then there might have been a different outcome in how people viewed them. The fact was that the Liberal Democrats were saying that the Council had broken promises. Well, his Party had kept on the School Music Service. The Liberal Democrats had been going to cut £400,000 from the libraries and reduce opening times, and the opening hours of the museums, which Labour had extended. This year they had been extended even further. The Liberal Democrats had wanted to take the money out of the City Plan to do their own pet scheme, and the City of Culture would not have happened. Certainly all those very, very difficult decisions over the last six years when, because of the Liberal Democrats Coalition Government, £110 million had been taken from the City at the very time that they had come in until the present time and the Liberal Democrats had been involved with that. The Liberal Democrat politicians in London had been involved with huge cuts to the Authority along with many others.

Councillor Sumpton asked if the Chair of the Economy and Regeneration Overview and Scrutiny Commission agreed that the decisions 138

made in the City Plan had resulted in significant regeneration and jobs growth in this City?

The Chair of the Economy and Regeneration Overview and Scrutiny Commission replied by thanking Councillor Sumpton for the question about City Plan because she had some views about it in case Councillor Sumpton had not noticed. There were some projects on the list in the City Plan that had been very good for the economic and regeneration of the City. Her view was that if you wanted to create a plan you needed more than a list of projects that you would like to see happen. If you wanted to create a plan for the whole City you needed to address a range of issues including inequality as well as the new projects you wanted to see. You needed to include areas outside of the City Centre as well. If you wanted to create a plan for the whole City it should be created by everyone together and not written by the Council, albeit maybe ask some people to rubber stamp your ideas so it feels like it included some other people as well. She was pretty sure that there were projects that made it onto the list that the City Plan became that would have happened regardless of whether there was a piece of paper that had that item written on it. She had also noticed that the Local Economic Partnership (LEP) had a strategic plan which said it was responsible for the decreases in unemployment in Hull. She was sure that both of them had some role in that but, of course, there were some positive projects in the City Plan which had been good for the City. She was pretty sure that it became important with the City Plan to make sure you shoehorned anything into it that you felt was important because the Council started saying “if it was not in a City Plan it was not important” and would not talk about it. She was also pretty sure that Siemens and other businesses had played a very large role in the economic development of the City. There was a hugely supportive business community in Hull and she did not think they got enough credit for the investment and the work they put in for the benefit of the whole City. She was also incredibly proud of the people in the City who had risen to the challenge of learning new skills in industry and who had wholeheartedly embraced the City of Culture. She loved the part of ‘Made in Hull’ on the Deep where it talked about our City being built on ‘you and me’. She thought it was really important that the City 139 was built on the people and she was really proud of them and of all of the staff that had done such a good job for the City of Culture. The challenge for the refresh of the City Plan happening at the moment was to not only make it relevant for the whole City; to be created by the whole City, and to tackle the issues of the whole City. This included economic regeneration for the whole of the City and also inequality, so that everyone benefited.

Councillor Langley asked the Portfolio Holder: City Plan Enabler – Culture and Leisure, several years ago the Portfolio Holder attempted to shut Springhead Golf Course citing a lack of funding as a reason. Recently it was announced that the Council may install a driving range on Dane Park’s ‘under used’ pitch and putt course. Could the Portfolio Holder explain why he claimed the Council didn’t have the funds to keep Springhead Golf Course open and only three years later it had enough to build and maintain a new driving range?

The Portfolio Holder: City Plan Enabler – Culture and Leisure replied that he knew that Councillor Langley was a new member but he thought what he ought to do was go back to 2011 and have a look. Labour kept going on about it as they had to because of the sort of statements Councillor Langley was making about Labour wanting to close the golf courses. In 2011 there was no doubt about it, if the programme had been carried on there would have been no golf courses in the City whatsoever because they were all on the verge of closing because of the cuts being made and further cuts in 2012, 2013 and 2014. That was the Liberal Democrat policy as a group. Labour had come in and rescues the situation and, as he understood it, the golf course at Springhead was doing very well indeed because Labour went into a partnership with a company in Wakefield. When he referred to the one on Orchard Park he was very happy indeed that he had two members who were very supportive of Culture and Leisure, Councillors Bayes and Conner. What they were trying to do on there was have corporate working because Councillors Bayes and Conner had moved that there should be a fishing lake there which would go ahead in the near future. By the flood policy they had no jurisdiction over, they were going to take half of the 9 hole golf course 140

away. So, at the same time, they were now, through the Portfolio Holder for Council Infrastructure, building some houses on Orchard Park. There would be a lot of redundant soil. That soil was piled up and would take 1,500 Lorries to shift it. That would have to go into landfill, which would cost the Authority £350,000. So, therefore, as good working Councillors they said ‘what can we do with it?’. Well, Labour were looking at a driving range because there was no point in having a 4 hole golf course. So why not convert it into a driving range so that many more people could use it? It seemed sensible that an opportunity like that should be seized. That was what Labour was all about on their side of the Chamber, making sure money was saved and everyone worked together.

Agreed – That the questions and answers be received.

81 COUNCIL TAX BASE 2017/18 City Customer Services The City Customer Services Manager submitted a Manager report which explained how the Council Tax Base for 2017/18 had been calculated. It also detailed the timetable required to meet the statutory requirements of the Local Government Finance Act, 1992, as amended by the Local Government Act, 2003, and the Local Government Finance Act, 2012. The Tax Base had to be approved by Council and notified to precepting authorities before 31 st January, 2017.

Moved by Councillor Hale and seconded by Councillor Webster:

a) That the calculation of the Council’s Tax Base, the equivalent number of Band D properties, for the year 2017/18, be approved, and

b) that pursuant to the report and in accordance with the Local Authorities (Calculation of Tax Base) Regulations, 2012, the amount of Band D equivalent properties calculated by the Kingston upon Hull City Council as its tax base for the year 2017/18 be 58,838.

Motion carried. 141

82 REVIEW OF LOCALLY DEFINED DISCOUNTS City Customer FOR COUNCIL TAX IN 2017/18 Services Manager (Councillor Petrini declared a personal interest in minute 82, insofar as her husband owned property in the City.

Councillor Hale declared a personal interest in minute 82, insofar as he was a Council appointed Director of Kingstown Works Limited.)

The City Customer Services Manager submitted a report which asked Council to consider if it wished to make any amendments for 2017/18 to those locally defined Council Tax discounts awarded in 2016/17.

Moved by Councillor Hale and seconded by Councillor Webster:

a) That for Class B Second Homes a 0% Discount, as detailed in paragraph 6.1 of the report, be agreed;

b) that the Special Constabulary (Police) Discount, as detailed in paragraph 6.3 of the report, be agreed;

c) that the Volunteer Reserve Forces Discount, as detailed in paragraph 6.5 of the report, be agreed;

d) that for the Empty and Uninhabitable Dwellings Under Major Repair/Alteration (Class D) a 0% discount for a period of 12 months, as detailed in paragraph 6.6 of the report, be agreed;

e) that for Empty and Unfurnished Dwellings (Class C) a 0% discount, as detailed in paragraph 6.6 of the report, be agreed;

f) that the Long Term Empty Property Levy of an additional 50% of the Council Tax charge for properties empty for over 2 years, as detailed in paragraph 6.8 of the report, be agreed, and

g) that the Council Tax Reduction maximum discount awardable to Working Age households on low incomes be 80% of their 142

liability, as detailed in paragraph 6.9 of the report, be agreed.

Councillors McCobb, Fareham and Inglis also spoke on the motion.

Councillor Hale then exercised his right of reply on the motion.

With the agreement of the Chamber, the vote on the motion was taken in parts.

Parts a), d), f) and g) carried. Part b) carried. Part c) carried. Part e) carried.

83 EXTERNAL AUDITOR APPOINTMENT Interim Director ARRANGEMENTS FOR FINANCIAL YEARS of Finance and 2018/19 ONWARDS Transformation (Section 151 The Interim Director of Finance and Transformation Officer) (Section 151 Officer) submitted a report which sought approval from Council to join the national scheme for external auditor appointments that had been proposed by the Public Sector Audit Appointments organisation.

Cabinet had considered the procurement options at its meeting on 19 th December, 2016, and recommended adoption of the national scheme. Ordinarily, Cabinet would make the final decision on procurement options. However, Statutory Regulations required Council to take the decision to join the national scheme.

Moved by Councillor Spencer and seconded by Councillor Sumpton:

That the invitation to opt-in to the national scheme for external auditor appointments proposed by the Public Sector Audit Appointments organisation, which relates to the appointment of auditors for five financial years beginning 1 st April, 2018, be accepted.

Motion carried.

143

84 PAY POLICY – APPROVAL FOR SEVERANCE City Human PACKAGE OF OVER £100,000 Resources Manager The City Human Resources Manager submitted a report which explained that the Localism Act, 2011, required the Council to publish a Pay Policy annually. Section 4.4 of that Policy stated that any severance package above a limit of £100,000 should be considered by Council.

The Council had entered into a Voluntary Early Termination Programme and had sought applications from staff to leave early in order that savings could be made. The leaving date for those staff had been agreed as 31 st March, 2017.

The report sought approval to make the severance payments to officers where their early termination payment, when added to the pension strain costs that the Council must bear as part of the Pension Scheme rules, came to over £100,000.

Moved by Councillor Spencer and seconded by Councillor Sumpton:

That, under paragraph 10.1.3 of the Council Procedure Rules, consideration of the above item be deferred to the budget meeting of the City Council to allow consideration in the context of the budget proposals.

Councillors Ross and Fareham also spoke on the motion.

Motion carried.

85 APPOINTMENT OF RESIDENTS TO THE Paul Rawcliffe CHARTERHOUSE

The Town Clerk explained that he had received a request from the Trustees of the Charterhouse to appoint two residents to the Charterhouse.

Agreed - That Mr. and Mrs. D. Salton of Earsham Close, Shannon Road, Kingston upon Hull, be appointed as a Brother and Sister to the Charterhouse.

144

86 REFERRAL FROM THE LICENSING COMMITTEE Director of – LICENSING THE SALE OF TOBACCO Health and Adult Services The Town Clerk submitted minute 96 of the Licensing Committee. It requested Council to support the Licensing Committee in gathering support to request the Government to make the sale of tobacco a licensable activity. The Licensing Committee had suggested that the licensing of the sale of tobacco would contribute to addressing the involvement of organised crime in this matter and would also provide health benefits in the longer term.

Moved by Councillor Chaytor and seconded by Councillor Abbott:

That minute 96 of the Licensing Committee held on 9th January, 2017, be noted and supported.

Councillor Mathieson also spoke on the motion.

Motion carried.

87 NOTICE OF MOTION Chief Executive

Moved by Councillor Ross and seconded by Councillor Bell:

Council notes that the year of 'City of Culture' has begun. Council notes that many individuals, organisations and businesses have been involved in securing the 'City of Culture' for Hull and in the work to organise it.

Council thanks all the members of ‘Team Hull’ who have helped to organise, create and manage the Hull 2017 ‘City of Culture’ programme.

Council in particular wishes to thank all those who worked so hard to make the ‘In With A Bang’ and ‘Made in Hull’ opening events so successful.

Council recognises that the success is built on the hard work of the many events staff, volunteers, artists, businesses, emergency service personnel, residents and those providing bus, train and taxi services.

145

Council welcomes the increase in tourism that the City is already experiencing and notes the huge attendance at the ‘Made in Hull’ events.

Council also notes the recent articles in The Sun and Daily Mail newspapers about Hull. Council deplores the coverage.

Council asks that the Chief Executive to write to the editor of The Sun and Daily Mail newspapers asking that they return to Hull and give a fair and true coverage to the City. Council also asks that the Chief Executive demands an immediate apology from The Sun and Daily Mail for the appalling articles.

Moved by Councillor Sumpton and seconded by Councillor Hale as an amendment:

The motion with the addition of a new paragraph after “Council welcomes the increase in tourism that the City is already experiencing and notes the huge attendance at the ‘Made in Hull’ events”:

“Council also welcomes the newfound support for City of Culture from the Liberal Democrat Group in Hull after previously attempting to remove the start- up funding from the City Plan in a previous budget amendment on the basis that the Council’s plans were moving too quickly. Council hopes this support, although late in the day, continues throughout the months ahead so that they can for once join with everyone positively”.

Adjournment – The meeting stood adjourned at 12.10 p.m. and reconvened at 12.15 p.m.

Following the adjournment Councillors Brady, Fareham, Webster, Williams, Geraghty, Thomas, Herrera-Richmond, McCobb, Mancey and Hewitt also spoke on the motion.

Councillor Sumpton then exercised his right of reply on the amendment.

Amendment carried.

Substantive motion moved by Councillor Sumpton and seconded by Councillor Hale:

146

Council thanks all the members of ‘Team Hull’ who have helped to organise, create and manage the Hull 2017 ‘City of Culture’ programme.

Council in particular wishes to thank all those who worked so hard to make the ‘In With A Bang’ and ‘Made in Hull’ opening events so successful.

Council welcomes the increase in tourism that the City is already experiencing and notes the huge attendance at the ‘Made in Hull’ events.

Council also welcomes the newfound support for City of Culture from the Liberal Democrat Group in Hull after previously attempting to remove the start- up funding from the City Plan in a previous budget amendment on the basis that the Council’s plans were moving too quickly. Council hopes this support, although late in the day, continues throughout the months ahead so that they can for once join with everyone positively.

Council also notes the recent articles in The Sun and Daily Mail newspapers about Hull. Council deplores the coverage.

Council asks that the Chief Executive writes to the Editor of The Sun and Daily Mail newspapers asking that they return to Hull and give a fair and true coverage to the City. Council also asks that the Chief Executive demands an immediate apology from The Sun and Daily Mail for the appalling articles.

Substantive motion carried.

147

88 NEXT BUSINESS

Moved by Councillor Sumpton and seconded by Councillor Hale:

That, under paragraph 10.1.12 of the Council Procedure Rules, Councillor Brady’s motion concerning Adult Social Care be taken as next business.

Moved by Councillor McCobb and seconded by Councillor Ross as an amendment:

The motion with the amendment that the meeting be extended to such a time as to allow all the business on the agenda to be dealt with.

Amendment carried. Substantive motion carried.

89 NOTICE OF MOTION Chief Executive

(Councillor Hale declared a personal interest in minute 89, insofar as he was employed as a Care Quality Commission Manager.)

Moved by Councillor Brady and seconded by Councillor Thomas:

Council notes the national funding crisis in Adult Social Care (ASC) and the cross party calls for specific additional funding to be put in place to begin to address this growing crisis in the Autumn Statement last year which went unheeded.

Council agrees with the comments made by experienced and respected parliamentarians on this issue including:

• Rt. Hon Norman Lamb MP, former Minister for Health; “There is a need for this Government to engage, for all parties to stand up to their responsibilities, to join a process to ensure we reach a once in a lifetime settlement. There is urgency; if you keep walking towards the edge of a precipice then real people will suffer”.

• Stephen Dorrell, former Secretary of State 148

for Health, now Chair of the NHS Confederation; “If social care is not available for dependent people when they need it they will present themselves in GP surgeries, A&E and Admission Wards. If we cut spending on these services we stoke up demand for NHS services”.

• Shadow Health Secretary Rt. Hon. Andy Burnham MP, "The Government is playing a dangerous game on social care. Far from acting on the social care crisis, the brutal reality is that the Government is deepening it and inflicting even more cuts on councils in some of the poorest parts of England”.

Council also notes that in research by the Local Government Association, (Adult Social Care Funding: 2016 the state of the nation report), the vast majority of ASC Directors do not believe they will make required savings and fear they will fail to deliver statutory services by 2019/20. Local government faces an overall funding gap of £5.8 Billion by 2019/20, £1.3 Billion of which relates to ASC. In 2016/17 alone, savings of £941 Million were made to ASC.

Council believes that using Council Tax as a way to raise money for adult social care results in the poorest people paying more and acts as a post code lottery in terms of how much or little can additionally be raised depending on the affluence of the area. It also moves the responsibility for meeting increasing national costs away from the Government and onto local councils.

Council welcomes the improved Better Care Fund but notes that it is ‘back-loaded’ and continued cuts to local government funding and the post code lottery of the ASC precept on Council Tax charges mean that is it will be, ‘too little arriving too late’, for the vast majority that need it.

Council recognises that if changes are not imminently made to the national funding mode l, local authorities will have no responsible alternative but to reluctantly apply the 3% ASC precept in 2017/18 and 2018/19 in order to protect the most vulnerable in the community and that this will likely be the case in Hull. 149

Council further recognises that had it not applied the 2% ASC precept in 2016/17 there would be a further £2.6 Million funding gap in 2017/18 exacerbating even further an already serious crisis in care.

Council resolves to ask the Chief Executive to write to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the Rt. Hon. Sajid Javid MP, stating the position of this authority in relation to the inadequacy of the ASC ‘post code lottery’ in alleviating the crisis in funding and calling for a national strategic approach to ASC funding and a re- phasing of the improved Better Care Fund so that it is front loaded and capable of providing essential and urgent support now, when it is needed.

Councillors Fareham, Hale and McCobb also spoke on the motion.

Councillor Brady then exercised his right of reply on the motion.

Motion carried.

90 NOTICE OF MOTIO N Paul Rawcliffe

Agreed - That, at the request of the mover, Councillor Thomas, her motion concerning Adult Social Care, was withdrawn.

91 NOTICE OF MOTIO N Paul Rawcliffe

Agreed - That the motion concerning the reaffirmation of the Council’s commitment to the Area Committees and devolved local decision making, be deferred to the meeting of the City Council when the report, “Pay Policy – Approval for Severance Package of Over £100,000”, is considered.

92 NOTICE OF MOTION Director of Health and Moved by Councillor Fareham and seconded by Adult Services Councillor Lunn as an amended motion:

Council recognises the Government’s commitment to improve mental health services across the country. 150

Council notes that the Government’s proposed strategy to provide further support for schools and workplaces is a step in the right direction to helping reduce the stigma of mental illness and to provide support for those suffering from mental health problems.

Council also notes that this commitment makes no mention of additional funding for the NHS to deliver improvements to mental health services and trusts any such allocated funding will not come from cutbacks elsewhere. Council also calls for such funding to be ring-fenced.

Council welcomes the training that will be made available to help support employees who are on leave due to mental health issues, and will continue to work in partnership with all agencies to support all members and employees.

Moved by Councillor Tock and seconded by Councillor C. E. Payne as an amendment:

The motion with the insertion of two new paragraphs after the words ‘mental health problems’ in the second paragraph. New paragraphs to read:

“Council notes that the former Coalition Government first announced £1.25bn of new funding over the next five years to treat 110,000 more children with mental health issues.”

“Council believes that the Prime Minister’s recent announcement is nothing more than recycling of the announcement made in March, 2015.”

Insert a new paragraph at the end of the motion which will read as follows:

“Council further asks that the Chief Executive writes to the Secretary of State responsible about the Prime Minister’s recent announcement that community care is to get £15m more in funding. Council asks that the Chief Executive requests information about the exact amount of funding coming to Hull, the date by which the funding will arrive, and organisations to which it will be provided.”

151

Councillors Abbott, Wilson, Ross, McCobb, Brabazon and Herrera-Richmond also spoke on this matter.

Councillor Tock then exercised her right of reply on the amendment.

Amendment lost.

Councillor Fareham then exercised his right of reply on the motion.

Motion carried.

93 NOTICE OF MOTION Town Clerk

Moved by Councillor Inglis and seconded by Councillor McCobb:

Council is unaware of any significant voter fraud during elections in Hull and considers that the recent review by Sir Eric Pickles MP has exaggerated limited inconsistencies in Tower Hamlets and certain perceived cultural practices amongst some British Asian communities in an attempt to limit the Franchise and make voting more difficult for poorer and more marginalised sections of society by recommending the requiring of more specific voter identification documents at Polling Stations.

Council resolves not to participate in any pilot projects flowing from this Review and to continue its past practice of attempting by all available means to increase turnout at elections in Hull.

Council further resolves to object strenuously to any attempt by the Government to enact comprehensive measures limiting the exercise of voting rights which may flow from the results of any pilot projects.

Councillors Fareham and Abbott also spoke on the motion.

Councillor Inglis then exercised his right of reply on the motion.

Motion carried.

152

Start: 10.00 a.m. Finish: 2.45 p.m.