Venue: Council Chamber - Keighley Town Hall. View directions
Contact: Jane Lythgow
DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST
(Members Code of Conduct - Part 4A of the Constitution)
To receive disclosures of interests from members and co-opted members on matters to be considered at the meeting. The disclosure must include the nature of the interest.
An interest must also be disclosed in the meeting when it becomes apparent to the member during the meeting.
(1) Members may remain in the meeting and take part fully in discussion and voting unless the interest is a disclosable pecuniary interest or an interest which the Member feels would call into question their compliance with the wider principles set out in the Code of Conduct. Disclosable pecuniary interests relate to the Member concerned or their spouse/partner.
(2) Members in arrears of Council Tax by more than two months must not vote in decisions on, or which might affect, budget calculations, and must disclose at the meeting that this restriction applies to them. A failure to comply with these requirements is a criminal offence under section 106 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992.
(3) Members are also welcome to disclose interests which are not disclosable pecuniary interests but which they consider should be made in the interest of clarity.
(4) Officers must disclose interests in accordance with Council Standing Order 44.
Councillor Godwin disclosed, in the interests of transparency, that he was previously employed by the NHS (Minute 25).
ACTION: City Solicitor
That the minutes of the meeting held on 18 July 2019 be signed as a correct record (previously circulated).
(Jane Lythgow – 01274 432270)
That the minutes of the meeting held on 18 July 2019 be signed as a correct record.
INSPECTION OF REPORTS AND BACKGROUND PAPERS
(Access to Information Procedure Rules – Part 3B of the Constitution)
Reports and background papers for agenda items may be inspected by contacting the person shown after each agenda item. Certain reports and background papers may be restricted.
Any request to remove the restriction on a report or background paper should be made to the relevant Strategic Director or Assistant Director whose name is shown on the front page of the report.
If that request is refused, there is a right of appeal to this meeting.
Please contact the officer shown below in advance of the meeting if you wish to appeal.
(Jane Lythgow - 01274 432270)
There were no appeals submitted by the public to review decisions to restrict documents
PUBLIC QUESTION TIME
(Access to Information Procedure Rules – Part 3B of the Constitution)
To hear questions from electors within the District on any matter this is the responsibility of the Committee.
Questions must be received in writing by the City Solicitor in Room 112, City Hall, Bradford, BD1 1HY, by mid-day on Tuesday 3 September 2019.
(Jane Lythgow - 01274 432270)
(a) In accordance with the provision at Part 3B, Paragraph 6 of the Council’s Constitution the following public question was presented:
What is the Council’s response to the following statement: “ I live off Ilkley Road in Riddlesden, and the traffic speed limit is 30mph, notably from Granby Lane/Banks Lane/Ilkley Road up to Barley Cote. I and many residents in the area think it needs to be reduced to 20mph, as was introduced several years ago in East Morton, where they have a wider road than we do. Particularly on Ilkley road, people just zoom up and down the road, which is dangerous given that it is effectively single lane traffic due to parked vehicles for most of the way. The corner adjoining my garden is difficult and unsafe to navigate at speed, as one often meets someone coming the other way head on. We are on the route for Ilkley Gate, where the local drug dealers and others go to have fun, and they do so at speed. There are houses vey close to the road, and it’s not a great environment. Both I and neighbours have had cats killed on the road. It’s getting to the stage where I seriously wonder about getting another pet. It’s much, much worse than when I moved her in 2001. Tractors and other large vehicles whiz along and there isn’t much chance of arguing with them. I realise that if the limit is lowered people will not keep to it and there is no real possibility of enforcement, but if it means they actually slow to 30 rather than going at 40, it would be a start. Ilkley Road, Riddlesden, especially, and other roads nearby need a 20mph speed limit zone in the interests of community safety” ?
In accordance with provision at Part 3B, Paragraph 6 of the Council’s Constitution the Chair advised that a written response to the question was provided as follows:-
“Thank you for your question to Keighley Area Committee requesting traffic speed restrictions in Riddlesden.
The Strategic Director has been requested to arrange for the road to be assessed for 20mph suitability during the next round of feasibility studies by the North Area Traffic Team. If suitable the proposal will be placed on the Keighley Area Committee outstanding scheme list for consideration at the next budget meeting. In the interim I will contact the local Neighbourhood Police Team regarding this issue to see if any extra roads policing activity can take place”.
Overview and Scrutiny Area: Regeneration and Environment
Action: Strategic Director, Place
The Strategic Director, Place, will present a report, (Document I), which considers an application for a Disabled Persons Parking Place at Staveley Road, Keighley.
Members are requested to consider Document I and determine if to allow the installation of a Disabled Persons Parking Place at 19 Staveley Road, Keighley.
(Regeneration and Environment Overview and Scrutiny Committee)
(Simon D’Vali – 01535 618375)
The Strategic Director, Place, presented a report, (Document I) which considered an application for a Disabled Persons Parking Place at Staveley Road, Keighley.
It was reported that the resident who had made the application had met all the criteria required to secure a disabled parking space outside their home with the exception of the mobility element of the required DWP benefit.
A plan showing the indicative location of a Disabled Persons Parking Place outside 19 Staveley Road was appended to the report. A large scale photograph of Staveley Road depicting the resident’s address was tabled at the meeting.
It was explained that neighbourhood consultation had been conducted and that no objections to the application had been received. It was confirmed that there wasn’t any off-street parking at Staveley Road.
A representative of Age UK was in attendance to support the application and addressed the meeting. She referred to a case study produced for the Portfolio Holder with responsibility for Regeneration, Planning and Transport, during a policy review. The case study referred to a similar case to the one under consideration involving a person who did not meet the criteria for a disabled parking space because she was not eligible for benefits which would allow her to meet the criteria. This was because of her age and not the level of her disability.
Following the presentation of the case study it was explained that the applicant avoid leaving her house because she was unable to park when she returned. In response to questions it was confirmed that the applicant was in receipt of a blue disabled parking badge.
The cost of the installation of the parking measures was questioned and it was explained that this would be between £100 and £150.
In response to questions about the location it was confirmed that the parking space depicted on the photograph tabled was to show the best place to park and there was not any residents only provision.
A Member referred to other parking restrictions in the area which had remained once residents had moved from their homes. It was requested that if the application was approved a condition be attached to remove the disabled park place if the applicant moved home.
That the application for the installation of a Disabled Persons Parking Place at 19 Staveley Road, Ingrow, Keighley, be approved with the condition that should the resident move from the property the parking place be removed.
OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE: Regeneration & Environment
ACTION: Strategic Director, Place
The report of the Deputy Director, Airedale, Wharfedale and Craven Clinical Commissioning Group (Document “J”) provides an annual update in relation to the outcome of the Clinical Commissioning Group Improvement and Assessment Framework and activities undertaken as part of system wide partnership working.
Members are invited to support further engagement through involvement of local Councillors in the activities of the community partnerships.
That the report be noted.
(Lynne Scrutton – 01274 237325)
The Deputy Director, Airedale, Wharfedale and Craven Clinical Commissioning Group presented Document “J” which provided an annual update to the committee in relation to the outcome of the Clinical Commissioning Group Improvement and Assessment Framework and activities undertaken as part of system wide partnership working.
The background to Document “J” reported that the Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) were created following the Health and Social Care Act in 2012, and replaced Primary Care Trusts on 1 April 2013. The CCGs are clinically-led statutory NHS bodies responsible for the planning and commissioningof health care services for their local area.
The report also reminded Members that the City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council was party to the Strategic Partnership Agreement (SPA) for Bradford District and Craven which set out the intent to work in partnership with health care commissioners and providers to deliver transformation and better integration of health and care services for the population of the Bradford and Craven district.
The Deputy Director provided a detailed PowerPoint presentation which focussed on the CCG Improvement and Assessment Framework and partnership working locally.
In respect to improvement and assessment Members were advised that all CCGs were assessed nationally each year. The Airedale, Wharfedale and Craven CCG had been assessed in July 2018 as outstanding and in 2019 as good. Definitions of the four domain areas assessed were provided and were Better Health; Better Care; Sustainability and Leadership. Each domain was given 25% weighting. The results of those assessments were discussed. Members were assured that the deteriorating financial situation was the reason for any worsening assessments and not the quality of care.
It was explained that the CCG spent more than it received and approximately £1,500 was spent on each person registered with a GP in the area. A pie chart depicted how an annual spend of £227.8m had been spent and showed that the largest spend was on acute hospital care.
Running costs were portrayed as 1% of annual spend and Members were advised that all CCGs had been instructed to make a 20% reduction to that figure by April 2020. As a result consultation had been undertaken to close all three CCGs in the area and create one new CCG. All member practices had voted in favour of the proposal. It was acknowledged that bringing the CCG into financial balance would be a challenge and there would be an £8million shortfall this year. A plan had been devised to reduce costs by £5million but it was likely that there would be a £4.5million deficit at the start of the new financial year.
Members were advised that of 195 CCGs nationally the Airedale, Wharfedale and Craven CCGs had been ranked in the top cohort for the past two years. The presentation depicted areas which had been rated good or needing improvement. The rationale for those rankings and actions for improvement were discussed.
Positive results included increased statin provision to improve cardiovascular disease; introduction of a consistent fall risk assessment providing significant improvements; ... view the full minutes text for item 25.