“Litter, what litter?”

A response to a Freedom of Information request has revealed that the York Council stopped counting the number of complaints it was receiving about litter 18 months ago!

Litter complaints admitted by York Council (click to enlarge)

Monthly figures have been provided only up to November 2013.

The decision not to record complaints co-incided with Labour’s cuts in the number of litter bins provided in the City.

Anecdotal evidence suggests that litter problems are worsening in many parts of the City.

The new Council which will be elected on May 7th will certainly expect not only performance volumes like these to be gathered but also to have them published routinely on the Council’s web site

The Council recently announced further cuts to litter bin provision in sub-urban parts of the City including Foxwood Lane.

Acomb Rates Discount – list of properties published

Mystery deepens over Council decision as FOI response reveals only 4 empty units may be affected.

11-15 Front Street

The Labour Cabinet came under fire earlier in the month when it nodded through a proposal to give 50% Rates relief to any empty property in the “Acomb” area that was brought back into use.

Now the Councils list of empty retail (and commercial) properties in the YO24 and YO26 area has been published.

The list reveals that the main “problem” property (which is also very prominent) is 11 – 15 Front Street (part of which was formerly occupied by Superdrug). We understand that the property was sold be the Coop Bank a couple of years ago and is now understood to be back on the market.

Many will feel that this site needs redeveloping although what Rates discount would apply to new properties remains unclear.

As we have said before, there is a good case for improving on the government scheme which gives a Rates discount on re-occupied properties which have been empty for more than 12 months.

However if discounts apply from day one then this could rightly be regarded as unfair competition by existing traders.

It was pointed out at the time, that the area of benefit was ill defined and – if it was intended to boost the Front Street area – then it needed to be focussed on longer term empty properties.

With the recession now ending it appeared that most shops had either been occupied or were under offer. Some prime sites are now understood to be changing hands at a premium.

The LibDems submitted the following comments to the meeting earlier in the month

The Liberal Democrat Group was disappointed that the Labour Cabinet did not support a comprehensive regeneration proposal for Front Street at July’s full Council.

This proposal, which uses powers given to Councils by the Coalition Government, seems to have been cobbled together in a rush – as the rewrites in the paper published on the council website indicate. Key details such as which exact area the discount will apply within are missing (the council papers refer only to “Acomb”). The paper does not explain why the scheme is restricted to retail premises (the similar Government scheme refers to all businesses) and it does not explain how temporary ‘pop-up’ units will affect entitlements.

We would also like further information on how the process will work given the September deadline for applications. The concern that the discount could be used by national chains, moving into prime sites immediately as leases become available, is not addressed and no alternative proposals are considered e.g. focusing discounts on properties which have been empty for over 3 months (business rates are not payable on a commercial property for the first 3 months that it is empty).

The Council needs to act promptly to clear u the confusion caused by its decision

Dog fouling in York – shock statistics

click to enlarge

It looks like the decision made by the Council to scrap the dog warden (animal welfare) service has backfired.

Complaints about dog fouling have been increasing but it seems that many do go unreported.

The number of fines issued has steadily decreased.

Now there is likely to be a move to reintroduce the dog warden service when the York Council debates its budget plans for the forthcoming year on 27^th February.

York Council to water down petitions action – “smile you’re on……”

The Council is being asked to abandon the right citizens currently have to hold highly paid officials to account.

A proposal to the “Audit Committee” says that senior officials should not in future have to attend a meeting to answers questions raised about their management responsibilities.

York residents petition

The existing petitions scheme (agreed in 2010) contains the following clause:

If your petition contains at least 500 signatures, you may ask for a senior council officer to give evidence at a public meeting about something for which the officer is responsible as part of their job. For example, your petition may ask a senior council officer to explain progress on an issue, or to explain the advice given to elected members to enable them to make a particular decision. The following senior staff can be called to account:
• Chief Executive
• Chief Finance Officer
• Monitoring Officer
• Directors of Service

A report, drafted by the Council’s monitoring officer, suggests abandoning this right.

Cabinet members also escape any requirement to explain their actions to taxpayers.

There are currently 5 live petitions running on the Councils web site.

The last Council meeting discussed a record number of petitions (7) submitted by residents and which had passed the 1000 signature threshold which guaranteed a discussion at a full Council meeting.. Most concerned the controversial aspects of Labour draft Local Plan.

—————————–

The same meeting – which is taking place next Wednesday -is set to approve a “protocol” for web casting of Cabinet and Council meetings.

Sadly the report makes no reference to the costs of such a proposal nor does it indicate how many “viewers” the trial broadcasts have attracted (understood to be derisory)

The key issue is whether a casual viewer would be able to follow what was actually taking place at a Council meeting. Even those sitting in the public gallery, with an agenda in front of them, some times struggle to work out what is going on.

The Council need to further develop the information that can be provided possibly using a split screen format. It is just possible that, if residents could see the relevant agenda item papers, together with the way that individual Councillors vote on each issue, more interest might be generated.

The trial web casting of “Cabinet” meetings has attracted very little interest. The meeting consist only of a dull procession of uninspired speeches from Labour Councillors. (It is a one party meeting).

A Council meeting offers more opportunity for debate on important issues but it will require much better organisation than has been evident on York Council governance issues over recent months.

York City centre shopper decline started in 2012

York City centre “to let”

The calamitous decline in the number of shoppers in the City centre first became apparent in 2012.

In that year, the new Labour administration increased car parking charges by 20p for residents.

Yearly footfall figures click to enlarge

In 2013 they went up again meaning that residents faced a 36% hike in just 2 years.

We forecast that this could have major implications for City centre traders.

The additional traffic restrictions have simply accelerated the downward spiral with “to let” notice springing up all around the City centre as shops pull out.

In the period up to 2011 the, then LibDem led, Council had frozen parking charges.

It had even reduced them at an innovatory “shoppers car park” at Foss Bank.

Footfall figures reveal that for the first 3 years of the recession (2008 – 2011) the numbers accessing the City centre were remarkably stable.

2012 saw a 6% reduction while this increased to 12% comparing September 2013 with the same month in 2012.

Bus Journeys in York Click to enlarge

New traffic restrictions were blamed for the accelerating trend.

Meanwhile the numbers of bus passengers has also fallen away although the Council has so far refused to reveal the 2012 passenger numbers.

As we said yesterday, the Council seems to be frozen into inactivity with no real idea what to do to get itself out of the self created crisis.

Nero showed a greater sense of urgency.

Oliver House – £30,000 taxpayers bill for property empty for 18 months

It has become clear why the Council’s leadership were so reluctant to answer questions about the future of the former elderly person’s home at Oliver House in Bishophill at the last council meeting.

A Freedom of Information response has revealed that the building is costing taxpayers nearly £2000 a month to keep empty.

The building has been unused since April 2012.

The only “occupants” are a firm called “ad hoc property management” who – in return for access – offer a “free” security service.

No rent or other income has been received for the property.

Discussions with the York CVS, which might have led to the building being sold to them, started in May 2012. They stalled several months ago.

The value of the prime site has been put at over £1 million with offers having apparently already been made, to the Council, by housing developers.

The Council has spent £30,000 over the last 18 months paying rates and on maintaining the empty property.

There are currently over 4500 people on the waiting list for social accommodation in the City. Many of these require single person accommodation

NB. The Guildhall has also now been empty for 8 months and is costing Council taxpayers around £160,000 a year in maintenance, rates and other costs.

York Council footpath investment down by 40%

New figures reveal that investment, in keeping York’s footpaths in a safe condition, has fallen by 41% over he last 5 years

Expenditure on repairs peaked at £1.8 million in 2009 when the Council was under Liberal Democrat Leadership.

Neglected roads and paths in Kingsway West reported on Saturday

This year only £1 million will be spent. The detailed figures – revealed in response to a Freedom of Information request – are:

• 2009/10 – £1,794k

• 2010/11 – £1,784k

• 2011/12 – £1,667k

• 2012/13 – £1,160k

• 2013/14 – £1,050k

The Council received 48 claims for compensation last year from people who had fallen on badly maintained footpaths. £6,750 was paid out in compensation

The number of complaints about pavements doubled in 2012/13 to 554 from a level of 258 two years earlier.

The Council admits that 5% of its footpaths require resurfacing.

Each year the Council resurfaces less than 1% of the total mileage of footpaths in the City.

The most complained about footpaths are Front Street in Acomb and Coney Street.

NB. The Council are currently spending £500,000 relaying flags in Kings Square. despite the area being in a generally good condition

York Council slow to answer information requests

The York Council is struggling to reach statutory response time targets for responding to Freedom of Information (FOI) requests.

The number of such requests increased following the change in policy implemented by the new Council – elected in May 2011 – which saw more decisions taken behind closed doors and background information withheld from residents.

The local media have also struggled to get answers to legitimate questions

The Information Commissioner had to be called in force the Council to reveal information about bus services

A guide to FOI can be found here.https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/

The Council admits,

“Between April 2012 and March 2013, 239 FoI responses have taken more than (the deadline of)20 days

Of the 239, on some occasions, extensions to the deadline have been negotiated with those requesting information. In other cases, the complexity of a request has contributed to a delay.

The Council also accepts that some were delayed because of the volume of requests received at particular times.

A review is currently underway to consider how the FOI process could be improved”.

We have some sympathy with the York Council which, in 2009, became one of the first in the country to routinely publish its responses to FOI requests on its web site.

It is also true that some commercial interests clog the system with repeat requests for information about contracts and lists of ratepayers that they believe they can exploit on a commission basis.

But taxpayers do have a legal right to information and the processes need to be speeded up.

The number of FOI requests is likely to increase further as the Council is now reducing the frequency that it publishes quality of public service statistics

Cllr Stephen Fenton, Cllr Ashley Mason & Cllr Paula Widdowson

Dringhouses and Woodthorpe Liberal Democrats