►
From YouTube: Leeds City Council - Scrutiny Board Call-In (Environment, Housing and Communities) - 9 November 2020
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
Okay,
welcome
to
the
scrutiny
board,
environment
and
housing.
This
is
a
special
meeting.
It's
a
call-in
meeting,
because
a
decision
was
taken
to
the
last
executive
board
and
as
a
result
of
that,
a
group
of
councillors,
mainly
the
liberal
democrat
group,
have
got
concerns
about
this
decision.
So
we
are
hearing
the
views
of
councillor
bentley
and
one
of
his
witnesses
today
in
terms
of
this
decision.
B
Certainly
under
item
number
two:
the
agenda
does
not
contain
any
exempt
information
under
item
number
three.
There
are
no
formal
late
items
of
business
added
to
the
agenda,
but
the
board
has
has
been
in
receipt
of
a
supplementary
pack
which
contains
some
additional
information
relating
to
item
seven
agenda.
Item
number
four
is:
do
members
have
any
declarations
of
disclosable
cuny
interest
that
they
wish
to
make
and
take
silences
none.
Thank
you
very
much.
A
B
A
All
right
welcome
to
all
the
substitutes,
so
we
now
move
on
to
item
six
I'll
now.
What
we'll
do
first
of
all,
though,
is
we
better
introduce
ourselves
as
to
who
everybody
is
so
I
am
councillor
barry
anderson
and
I
chair
this
particular
scrutiny
board,
so
counselor
bigly,
who
is
dual
hearted?
You
want
to
introduce
your
dual
hattedness
as
well.
A
E
A
A
A
H
I
D
A
A
And
we
don't
know
whether
we'll
need
them,
but
angela
broden
hi,
angela
brogdon
principal
scrutiny,
advisor
and
helen
gray,
who
you've
already
heard
from
hello,
I'm
helen,
I'm
clarking.
Today's
meeting,
okay
and
tasha
may
need
to
intervene
depending
on
what
happens
throughout
the
meeting.
So
you
want
to
introduce
yourself.
A
L
Hello-
and
this
call
in
meeting
is
specific
to
the
res-
the
report
considered
by
the
executive
board
on
the
21st
of
october
2020
issues
outside
of
this
decision,
including
other
related
decisions,
may
not
be
considered
as
part
of
the
board's
decision
regarding
the
outcome
outcome
of
the
call-in.
In
conclusion,
the
board
today
may
pursue
one
of
two
courses
of
action:
option
one
release
the
decision
for
implementation
or
option
two
recommend
that
the
decision
be
reconsidered.
L
A
Okay,
so
if
I
can
move
on
to
agenda
item
seven
as
anybody
got
any
points
they
would
like
to
make
about
confidentiality
or
anything
of
that
elk,
anybody
wanting
to
raise
any
concerns
or
anything
like
that.
No,
I
can't
see
any
indications
just
for
clarity's
sake,
I'll
do
my
best
to
watch
for
people
raising
their
hands,
but
if
people
can
use
the
raised
hand
function,
it
will
help.
A
But
if
people
are
waving
and
indicating
up
me,
I
will
try
and
note
note
that
as
well
so
we'll
try
and
make
it
flow
as
best
we
possibly
can.
So
in
that
case
then,
can
I
now
formally
ask
councillor
bentley,
on
behalf
of
the
signatories,
to
outline
the
reason
why
he
wants
us
to
reconsider
the
decision.
E
E
Achieving
cost
reductions
of
three-quarters
of
a
million
pounds
and
then
paragraph
3.7
indicates
that
teams
are
already
combined
allowing
the
organization
to
develop
stronger
programs
across
the
region.
Paragraph
3.14
explains
how
there
is
a
single
management
team.
The
operator
under
the
trading
name
of
groundwork,
yorkshire
and
they
are
are
in
achieving
improvements
in
financial
performance.
E
E
E
This
cabinet
paper
is
dated
october
2017
a
couple
of
years
after
first
consideration
of
a
merger.
There
was
no
reference
to
this
wakefield
cabinet
paper
in
the
exec
board
paper
and
just
a
quick
word
on
the
status
of
that
wakefield
paper
when,
when
councillor
galton
referred
to
it
in
the
discussion
at
exec
board,
mr
rogers
implied
that
it
was
not
relevant,
but
it
was
referred
to
by
an
officer
briefing
me
on
the
black
background
to
the
decision.
E
The
paper
talks
about
the
merger
of
the
three
organizations
into
a
new
single
entity.
But
if
you
look
at
the
proposal
in
paragraph
3.2,
the
proposed
structure
is
the
dissolution
of
groundwork,
leads
and
groundwork.
North
yorkshire
and
the
transfer
of
their
assets
and
liabilities
to
groundwork,
wakefield
and
although
groundwork
wakefield
was
checked,
will
change
its
name
to
groundwork.
Yorkshire.
E
Finally,
there
was
a
mention
a
few
times
in
the
papers
of
due
diligence.
I've
asked
for-
and
I
have
not
seen
a
due
diligence
report.
The
only
evidence
of
due
diligence
I
have
seen
is
a
reference
to
a
review
that
independent
accountants
bhp
carried
out
on
the
three-year
business
plan
of
the
merged
organization.
E
A
H
Thank
you
chair.
We
do
note
and
we
support
what
jonathan's
saying
in
terms
of
a
lack
of
a
risk
assessment
and
the
fact
that
there's
no
clarity
in
terms
of
the
due
diligence,
I
can
give
some
background
to
colleagues,
we
never
regarded
groundwork
as
groundwork.
Lead,
we've
always
regarded
it
as
groundwork.
Morley
the
building's
in
morley.
We
have
a
very
strong
and
positive
relationship
with
groundwork.
H
We've
provided
additional
support
by
the
town
council
for
a
lot
of
their
projects,
including
supporting
the
community
who
and
the
excellent
work
that
they
actually
do
at
this
stage.
Now,
because
we
have
that
positive
relationship,
because
we
know
and
have
a
passionate
approach
towards
their
building.
We
have
significant
concerns
that,
if
we
don't
get
this
right,
all
that
we
will
be
straddled
with
is
a
new
organization
with
a
600
000
pound
debt
and
a
fine
building
in
molly
on
wesley
street
people
probably
know
it
that
he's
arrived
for
development.
Now.
H
If
anybody
knows
molly,
they
will
know
most
of
the
mills
in
and
around
morley
have
been
redeveloped
into
flats
and
apartments
at
this
particular
point,
putting
a
strain
on
local
infrastructure.
That's
well
known
across
a
lot
of
the
outer
areas
of
leeds
anyway,
so
we
have
a
significant
concern
at
this
particular
point
that
we're
risking
a
lot
and
gaining
very
little.
It
is
very
difficult
from
groundwork,
leads
point
of
view
to
see
what
they
get
from
this
other
than
being
sidled
with
a
significant
debt
and
from
groundwork
molly's
perspective.
H
H
The
people
of
leeds
lose
out
the
people
of
morley
lose
out
and
we
have
a
fine
building
that
is,
at
the
center
of
a
lot
of
community
relevant
in
our
community
handed
over
to
some
developers
to
make
lots
of
money.
So
I
think
fundamentally,
we
want
to
support
what
council
bentley
is
saying
at
this
point.
A
Thank
you
right
now.
The
way
that
the
process
will
now
flow
is
that
I'm
going
to
invite
board
members
to
ask
any
questions
of
counselor,
bentley
and
councillor
finnegan
and
then
once
we've
exhausted.
That
part.
I'm
then
going
to
invite
councillor
rafiq
to
basically
to
respond
to
the
points
that
have
been
raised,
but
enabling
counselor
rafiq
to
draw
in
the
expert
witnesses
and
other
people
that
he
has
brought
along
with
him
today.
B
H
A
C
I
personally
asked
exactly
the
same
things,
because
there
was
one
point:
it
was
either
scarborough
riddlington
to
move
the
base
to
it's
going
back
either
last
year
or
the
year
before.
I
should
have
got
my
papers
now,
but
all
this
was
discussed
by
members.
Then
I
don't
you
think
he
would
just
sat
there
and
let
all
this
just
go
through.
Thank
you.
Chad.
A
A
E
A
H
I'm
just
coming
and
we've
never
been
consulted
in
the
best
part
of
20
years.
As
a
representative
of
molly,
I've
never
been
consulted
in
any
of
this.
Whether
there's
been
a
merger,
what's
going
to
happen
to
the
building.
Any
of
these
meetings
never
been
past
the
minutes.
So
as
far
as
I'm
concerned,
I
know
nothing
of
such
matters
now.
The
issue
is
not.
H
H
Our
concern
is
you're
in
an
organization
that
hasn't
got
a
six
hundred
thousand
pound
debt
you're
going
to
join
up
with
an
organization
that
got
got
a
600
000
pound
debt
and
you
have
a
fabulous
building,
a
real
asset
that
you
could
flog
that
any
developer
who
wants
to
make
a
load
of
money
at
other
people's
expense
is
quite
happy
to
take
over,
and
that
would
be
where
our
concern
lies.
Thank
you.
A
A
E
E
E
F
F
A
F
And
I
just
wanted
to
basically
ask
councillor
bentley
if
he
had
kept
up
to
date
with
things,
because
things
happened
after
council
sue
bentley
left,
and
I
did
thanks
councillor
bentley
for
all
the
work
that
she
did
with
myself
and
the
other
directors
to
try
and
sort
things
out.
And
so
that's
all.
My
question
is:
thank
you.
E
I
I'm
gonna
answer
the
same
way
as
I
answered
councillor
grahams.
I
think
that
I
am
bringing
this
call
in
based
on
what
is
in
the
exact
board
paper.
That
is
what
I've
got
to
do.
I
can't
look
at
external
things
or
or
related
to
it.
So
what's
in
the
exact
board
paper,
what
I
was
told
in
briefings,
that's
what
I
brought
forward.
Yes,
I
did.
E
B
B
So
I
presume
the
trustees,
including
lead
city
council,
will
no
longer
have
any
responsibility,
but
will
there
be
any
leads
trustee
input
into
the
remaining
wakefield
groundworks,
even
if
they
do
change
their
name?
I
mean
what
is
the
plan
in
the
future
for
some
input
from
leads
regarding
the
trustee
boards.
M
Yes,
thank
you
chair.
So,
as
was
mentioned
earlier,
the
new
groundwork
entity
of
groundwork,
yorkshire,
will
come
into
being
the
vehicle
that
we
chose,
for
it
was
just
the
simplest
one,
which
is
one
of
the
free
trusts,
would
would
continue
and
rename
itself.
It
also
adopts
a
completely
new
set
of
articles
of
memorandum
and
articles
of
association
within
that
the
company
membership
changes
so
that
leed
city
council
will
be
a
company
member,
and
I
think
that
was
one
of
the
decisions
made
by
the
executive
board
of
the
new
entity.
M
So
legi's
position
as
a
company
member
is
completely
guaranteed
by
that.
So
there
will
be
a
new
company
membership
of
wakefield
council
leeds
council,
a
hybrid
membership
from
selby
district
and
selfie
town
council,
just
counting
as
one
member
and
the
federation
of
groundwork.
Trust
remains
a
member
of
the
new
groundwork
entity
as
it
is
currently
a
member
of
groundwork
leads.
Hopefully
that
is
it.
Does
that
answer
those
questions.
B
B
M
I'm
sorry,
that's
a
very
good
question
and
I
think
that
again
it
touched
on
something
that
has
been
mentioned
before.
Over
the
five
years
we've
been
developing
these
proposals,
we've
had
over
20
meetings
and
the
main
reason
why
groundwater
wakefield
was
chosen
to
be
the
vehicle
is
grant.
Whitefield
owns
an
asset
kirkgate
train
station.
Many
of
you
will
be
familiar
with,
which
is
worth
over
1.2
million
pounds.
That's
an
asset,
that's
actually
held
on
a
99-year
lease
from
network
rail,
and
it
would
the
advice
we
had
was.
M
It
would
be
easier
to
not
try
and
transfer
that
1.2
million
pound
asset
between
current
owner
ground
weight
fields,
which
would
become
groundwork,
yorkshire
and
a
different
entity.
So
that
was
the
reason
that
that
was
that
was
made,
and
it
was
great
made
over
a
number
of
meetings
of
the
all.
The
portals
separately
agreed
that.
B
Could
you
just
briefly
to
tell
us
what
what
the
assets
are
for
all
of
the
groundworks
that
will
be
merging
then
so
we've
just
mentioned:
there's
a
building
in
morley
that
you
we've
just
mentioned
this
new
sorry.
Well,
a
train
station
train
station.
Yes,
somebody
mentioned
something
about
a
golf
club.
So
what
briefly
are
all
the
assets,
because
I
think
that
would
show
probably
that
it's
not
just
the
building
in
morley
that
would
finance
any
debt.
You've
got
your
assets
spread
quite
wide.
M
Yeah,
I'm
happy
to
do
that.
Yes,
so
the
marley
building
is
the
main
asset
of
the
leeds
groundwork.
Trust
the
wakefield
groundwork.
Just
has
99-year
lease
on
the
train
station.
That's
curtgate
station,
which
is
currently
rented
for
commercial
income,
so
that
that's
a
source
of
income,
that's
available
to
the
groundwork
sort
of
combined
entity.
M
It
also
manages
to
form
municipal
golf
courses,
one
in
wakefield
and
one
in
hull.
They
are
on
track
to
generate.
You
know
about
seventy
thousand
pounds
of
income
again,
which
should
support
the
work
of
groundwork.
That's
that's
the
main
reason
why
they
hold
them.
This,
the
north
yorkshire
trust
at
the
moment,
doesn't
hold
any
particular
assets,
although
it
is
in
negotiation
to
take
over
a
millennium
green
in
york,
which
will
bring
with
it
a
sizeable
dowry
in
terms
of
income
to
cover
the
operating
cost
of
that.
A
Thank
you,
okay
right.
I
can't
see
anyone
else
indicating
here.
So
if
I
can
now
pass
over
to
council
rafiq
to
basically
answer
the
points
that
have
been
raised
by
councillor
bentley
and
councillor
finnegan
and
to
call
anyone
else,
he
wishes
to
support
or
to
elaborate
in
any
comments
he's
making.
So
counselor
rafiq.
I
Thank
you
thank
you,
chair
I'll,
I'll
start
off
and
then
I'll
I'll
bring
in
my
colleagues
to
to
to
add.
Perhaps
okay,
no,
as
you
know,
the
report
to
executive
board
in
october
clearly
set
out
why
merging
improves
the
resilience
and
the
sustainability
of
the
whole
groundwork
organization,
how
emerging
sports
operational
efficiencies
and
by
acting
on
a
regional
level,
they
expand
opportunities
for
income
generation.
I
I
think,
given
you
know,
with
the
finances
of
within
public
sector
sector
organizations,
you'll
see
that
many
organizations
are
going
down
this
route.
The
both
benefits
are
the
foundation
which
I've,
just
you
know
talked
about.
Are
the
foundation
of
release
city
council
decision
to
endorse
the
board's
decision
and
support
the
merger
was
underpinning.
The
decision
is
an
aspiration
for
leads
to
continue
to
benefit
from
the
value
and
contribution
of
groundwork
as
an
active
sector
organization.
I
I
The
lease
board
has
considered
the
value
of
merging
and
the
process
of
coming
to
the
city
and
has
included
a
view
of
the
options
available
to
lead
board.
An
optional
appraisal
was
undertaken
as
part
of
the
independent
view,
and
these
were
also
considered
by
by
the
board
this
process
and
the
observation
options
under
consideration
were
highlighted
within
the
executive
board
report,
including
independent
conclusion
that
none
offered
a
clear
advantage
over
the
proposal
to
merge
in
reaching
his
decision
executive
board
had
the
information
necessary
to
support
the
murder
chair.
I
You
know,
answered
to
to
the
full
that
did
indeed
the
groundwork
leads
and,
and
the
council
were
fully
aware
and
of
of
that
and
those
questions
actually
were
answered.
It
was
also
pointed
out
that
the
leads
asset
will
not,
although
it'll
be
part
of
the
merger,
but
the
key
thing
is
that
you
know
that
lee's
asset
will
will
not
be
used
as
a
security
for
the
wakefield
loan
as
well
I'll
stop
there.
I
You
know
group
members
as
well,
but
I
don't
think
that
has
actually
been
forthcoming,
so
without
any
attendances
and
these
members
and
my
colleagues,
councillor,
garthwaite
and
the
councillor
backbone
have
actually
have
been
full
sort
of
fully
involved
in
the
disciplines,
and
I
perhaps
asked
for
garth
waite
after
I've
spoken
and
then
james
and
tony
and
adrian
two
to
add
to
that.
If
I
can
just
pass
on
to
councillor
garthwait,
if
that's
okay,
with
your
chair.
A
D
Yes,
just
first
of
all
taking
up
a
point
made
by
councillor
finnegan
groundwork,
as
you
know,
works
all
over
leeds
and
indeed
far
more
widely.
I
myself
have
worked
with
groundwork
in
former
years
on
my
local
park
in
biston,
and
we
regularly
look
at
what
groundwork
has
done
in
hunslet
and
as
council
bentley
said,
wheat
would
as
well
and
all
over
working
with
particularly
low-income
communities,
using
landscape
architecture
to
brighten
and
improve
the
area
and
engaging
new
communities,
training
them
in
skills
and
so
on.
D
As
I
think
was
mentioned.
It
was
open
to
the
liberal
democrats
to
have
had
a
representative
on
the
board.
After
all,
the
woman
bentley
left,
the
council.
They
didn't
choose
to
do
this,
and
indeed
councillor
of
the
lake
council
wilkinson's
place
has
not
been
filled
either,
but
the
opportunity
was
there
and
my
understanding
is
that
when
the
new
board
is
formed,
leeds
would
have
the
option
of
three
representatives
on
that
main
board.
D
So
it's
not
that
all
influence
is
being
given
up
I'd,
finally
like
to
say
before
I'd
like
to
really
pass
on
to
the
director
adrian
curtis
or
others,
to
go
into
the
more
technical
details,
but
that
we
have.
Since
I
became
a
member
of
the
board
and
a
trustee
two
years
ago,
we,
this
has
been
a
main
topic.
We
have
scrutinized
it
all
really
carefully.
I'm
a
trustee
of
three
other
charities,
two
of
which
I
chair.
D
J
Can
I
just
come
in
yeah
just
to
add
to
some
of
the
comments
that
have
been
being
made
and
addressed
some
of
the
early
comments
from
councillor
bentley,
council,
finnegan
and
then
others
can
come
in
in
terms
of
more
detail.
I
might
repeat
some
of
it,
but
I
think
it's
just
probably
just
emphasizing
some
some
particular
points.
J
Clearly
I
suppose
roles
and
responsibilities
on
this
one
are
quite
complex
because
actually,
ultimately,
the
responsibility
for
decisions
about
groundwork
leads
rests
with
the
board
of
groundwork,
leads
and
not
the
city
council,
but
clearly
in
this
particular
case,
because
we're
talking
about
a
merger
and
effectively
dissolution
of
groundwork,
leaders
part
of
that
merger,
the
the
member
as
a
member
of
that
company.
That
would
need
our
approval.
Hence
why
the
report
was
taken
to
executive
board
to
seek
that
support
for
the
decision,
ultimately
of
groundwork
leads
board
to
progress
with
that
merger.
J
J
We're
keen
to
make
sure
that
all
of
the
questions
that
have
been
posed
by
council,
bentley,
council
finnegan
were
addressed
by
the
board
in
terms
of
moving
to
a
position
where
a
merger
could
actually
be
be
supported,
and
you
will
know
from
the
papers
and
decisions
of
other
members
that,
where
we're
the
last
one
to
provide
our
support
for
this
proposed
merger.
As
a
consequence
of
that
detail,
work
that's
been
done.
J
The
council
has
been
sort
of
advising
the
groundwork
leads
board
from
a
perspective
of
what
legal
advice
and
such
that
they
would
need
to
actually
undertake
and
what
financial
assessments
that
they
would
need
to
undertake
to
get
to
a
position
where
they
can
support
a
merger.
And,
after
all,
that
work
has
been
done.
The
groundwork
leaders
board
have
got
to
that
position
where
they
feel
able
to
support
that
merger,
and
I
think
it's
in
in
the
best
interest.
J
Councilman
is
right
to
say
that
a
lot
of
collaboration
has
already
commenced,
with
the
joining
up
and
integration
of
resources
and
the
way
the
different
organizations
work,
and
we
have
seen
benefits
from
that.
But
I
would
say-
and
adrian
will
confirm
this-
that
much
of
that
corporation's
always
been
on.
I
suppose
the
journey
ultimately
to
merger.
In
terms
of
that
being
the
expectation
in
terms
of
the
sort
of
the
totality
of
the
benefits
that
can
be
gained
from
a
complete
merger
that
couldn't
take
place
in
in
due
course.
J
I
didn't
say
it
wasn't
relevant.
It
was
clearly
very
relevant,
but
things
have
moved
on
since
2017
and,
what's
now
transpired
is
the
the
debt
that
is
out
to
wakefield
is
actually
secured
against
the
wakefield
kyrgyz
station
asset
rather
than
the
molly
asset,
which
was
originally
proportioned
in
2017.
So
things
have
moved
on
somewhat
since
that
particular
time.
J
If
you
ask
me
why
that
was
proposed
by
whitefield
at
that
time,
I
think
the
simple
reason
was
is
because
the
kyrgyz
asset
was
probably
more
complicated
in
terms
of
securing,
because
it
was
a
lease
with
another
third
party
which
have
to
be
part
of
that
deal.
However,
those
discussions
have
now
taken
place
and,
and
that's
been
resolved,
so
I
don't
think
that
should
be
too
big
an
issue.
J
I
think
the
report
also
seeks
to
indicate
paragraphs
3.32
to
3.34
the
strong
feelings
of
both
the
city
council
and
the
groundwork
leads
board
that
they
have
in
terms
of
the
marla
building
and
how
they
would
continue
to
want
to
see
that
as
part
of
the
future
of
groundwork,
yorkshire.
Looking
forward
and
again
I'd
welcome,
adrian's
comments
in
terms
of
groundwork,
sort
of
perspectives
on
the
marley
building
looking
forward
to,
I
think
would
be
would
be
particularly
particularly
helpful.
J
A
Fine,
I
have
noted,
as
I
said,
council
bentley
and
council
finnegan
are
wanting
to
ask
questions,
but
mr
curtis
you've
heard
what's
been
said,
and
so
can
you
clarify
any
of
the
points
raised
by
councillor
bentley
or
councillor
finnegan
or
reinforce
what
some
of
your
colleagues
have
already
said?
Please.
M
Yeah,
I'm
more
than
happy
to
do
that.
Yes,
so
so
definitely
the
the
weight
field,
salary
or
the
loan
from
whitefield
council
to
wait
for
grant
trust
is
secured
against
the
kirkgate
asset.
That
I
think
jose
was
quite
right.
The
only
reason
why
the
molly
asset
was
ever
put
into
the
mix
there
was
because
of
it
was
viewed
as
something
that
would
take
a
couple
of
years
to
resolve
and,
to
be
honest,
it
did.
It
was
very.
It
was
very,
not
complex.
M
Just
took
a
long
time
to
talk
to
network
rail
and
get
them
to
try
or
to
agree
to
that
there
was.
There
was
no
risk
that
they
wouldn't
it's
just.
I
think
some
some
members
of
this
board
will
be
familiar
with
dealing
with
network
rail.
It
can
take
time
regarding
the
reviews.
The
bhp
review
has
been
mentioned.
That
was
a
significant
piece
of
external
scrutiny
and
it
did
conclude,
as
I've
been
mentioned,
that
the
best
option
was
to
merge,
as
as
we
as
we
had
previously
decided
as
boards.
M
M
So
at
the
start
of
this
process,
one
of
the
drivers
was
that
central
government
funding
that
we
received
was
been
was
being
removed,
and
that
was
that
took
over
700
000
pounds
of
income
away
from
groundwork
for
doing
its
work.
We
needed
to
find
alternative
sources.
One
of
the
things
I
think
that
I
touched
on
that
weight
fields
bring
to
the
collective
table
is
a
number
of
commercial
trading
entities
which
again
I've.
I
think
that
the
whole
process
identified
that
there
needed
to
be
some
improvements
in
the
way
they
were
run.
We've
delivered
those
improvements.
M
They
now
make
a
significant
contribution
to
the
costs
of
running
groundwork
in
yorkshire.
Without
those
contributions,
it
would
be
very,
very
hard
for
the
individual
trusts
to
sort
of
split
themselves
apart
and
exist
separately.
There
was
a
collective
agreement
again
to
actually
concentrate
all
of
our
administration
and
most
of
our
service
teams
in
the
marley
building.
That
is
something
that
was
done
willingly
and
it
was
it
that
again
also
allowed
us
to
save
significant
sums
of
money
by
moving
away
from
our
main
base
in
wakefield
at
the
time.
H
A
couple
of
comments
on
it,
a
quick
question
if
I
may
share-
I
remember
I've
been
around
a
long
time.
I
remember
when
it
used
to
be
groundwork
south
leeds.
If
memory
serves
me
well
with
the
glorious
brine
north,
for
those
of
us
have
been
around
a
long
time,
may
remember:
council,
north
and
his
unique
approach
that
he
brought
to
the
political
world.
H
The
issue
is
I've
been
around
since
2002
the
mbis
have
been
around
since
2004..
We've
never
been
consulted
on
any
of
this.
We've
never
been
offered
a
position
on
the
board.
We
haven't
been
spoken
to,
notwithstanding
that
the
building
stands
within
the
marley
area,
so
just
make
that
clear,
never
offered
a
bold
position,
never
consulted.
Even
when
this
report
came
out
and
it's
based
upon
the
molly
building,
we
never
got
a
briefing.
H
The
only
way
I
found
out
it
was
from
council
ben,
please
rather
generous
offer
to
allow
me
to
speak
on
this
particular
issue.
The
question
I've
got
is:
is
a
guarantee
being
offered
that
the
morley
building
is
never
going
to
be
regardless
of
how
badly
things
go
with
wakefield
and
other
sorts
marley's
building
is
never
going
to
be
one
of
those
that's
under
threat.
H
M
M
Clearly,
the
loan
from
wakefield
council
is
secured
against
kurt
gates.
So,
if,
if
for
whatever
reason
we
were
able
to,
we
weren't
able
to
continue
with
those
payments
it,
it
would
be
cur
the
curt
gate
station
that
was
disposed
of
just
put
council
of
finnegan's
specific
question
at
rest.
The
station
was
refurbished
by
a
partnership
which
grant
wakefield
led
to
a
high.
It's
it's
a
high
level,
a
very
high
quality
office
building
at
the
moment.
M
So
we
have
a
number
of
tenants
in
there,
some
of
which
are
on
long-term
leases,
which
generates
over
80
000
pounds
of
income
every
year,
which
is
more
than
sufficient
to
pay
any
loan
repayments
to
wakefield
council.
I
think
that
it
has
been
transformed.
I
must
say
when,
when
you
look
at
the
pictures
of
curtgate
station,
you
know
several
years
ago,
it
was,
it
was,
I
think,
the
worst
station
in
the
country.
M
I
think
what
actually
won
one
famous
statement
about
it
so
actually
is
a
very
good
source
of
income
and
I'm
pleased
to
say
that
despite
the
rigors
of
the
pandemic,
most
of
our
income
has
held
up
well
in
there.
So
we
we
would,
we
would
see
it
as
a
you
know,
as
a
great
asset
and
a
great
source
of
income.
A
B
Thank
you
chair,
I'm
well,
there's
a
few
things.
I'm
not
quite
sure
why
councillor
finnegan
thinks
that
he
should
be
on
the
board
just
because
the
building
is
in
morley.
I
mean
this.
This
is
a
a
separate
entity
really
that
represents
leads.
So
I
think
if
there
is
an
opportunity
for
you
to
be
on
the
board,
then
that's
fine,
but
I
don't
think
that
the
the
board
should
have
gone
over
and
above
contacting
you
rather
than
the
same
way
it
contacts
all
other
councillors
just
because
it's
the
building
is
in
morley.
B
I'm
also
not
sure
that
we
can
actually
say
that
we've
got
to
put
restrictions
on
the
charity
to
to
commit
that
it
will
never
do
anything
with
that
building.
If,
if
you
are
concerned
about
what
that
dive
building
is
developed
for
within
the
future,
then
you
obviously
have
that
opportunity
through
the
planning
process
to
to
make
comment
on
that.
So
I
don't
think
it's
necessarily
appropriate
that
we
we
tie
the
charity
up
in
in
red
ribbon
on
that
one.
M
Yes,
I
think
I
can.
I
think
that
the
bhp
report
that's
been
mentioned.
It
has
been
shared
directly
with
well,
it
was
commissioned
by
lead
city,
council
and
wakefield
council
jointly
said,
so
that
is,
that
document
is,
is
available
for
anybody
to
read
in
terms
of
the
internal
scrutiny
that
the
groundwork
leads
board
made.
I'd
be
happy
to
make
that
available
to
anyone,
and
that
does
cover
all
of
the
issues
of
concern
that
were
raised
in
the
calling,
including
on
a
number
of
occasions
where
we
looked
at
the
alternative.
B
B
I
was
just
going
to
say
that
that,
but
that
review
was
in
2017,
if
I'm
not
mistaken,
mistaken,
and-
and
so
it's
probably
just
having
some
sort
of
documentation
that
says
that
that
those
that
information
within
that
document
is
still
valid
and
offer
an
any
update.
So
if
you've
done
that
within
the
board
and
you've
got
those
the
board
minutes
that
actually
do
that,
then
that's
fine,
it's
just
having
something
more
public.
M
I
think
it's
fair
to
say
that
council
officers
have
periodically,
I
suppose,
scrutinize
what
we've
been
saying
at
great
length.
So
so
because
of
the
delays
in
the
in
the
in
the
timescale
for
merger.
I
think
that
michael
who's
here
representing
the
finance
department,
he's
fair
to
say
that
michael's
probably
had
three
separate
reviews
of
our
financial
position,
based
on
the
information
that
we've
been
able
to
provide
him
and
obviously.
B
I'm
not
disputing
that,
it
hasn't
happened.
What
I'm
trying
to
say
is
what
documentation
is
there
up-to-date
documentation?
Is
there
that
summarizes
that
to
show
anybody
coming
in
externally
and
been
wanting
to
find
out
what
had
happened
since
2017
can
read
something
to
reassure
them
that
things
have
been
done
properly.
B
M
In
terms
of
the
virtually
any
of
the
issues
that
we've
talked
about,
we
could
give
you
an
update
in
terms
of
what
the
initial
wide
situation
hasn't
changed.
I
think
that
we
have
regular
financial
reviews
and
updates,
which
we
provide.
In
fact,
we've
got
one
tomorrow
that
trevor
the
chair
is
is
chairing
that
finance
committee,
so
that
again
proves
the
value
of
our
free
business
projections
and
that
we're
achieving
our
targets.
So
so
so
I
I
would
say
that
depend
depending
on
the
nature
of
the
question.
M
M
M
G
There
isn't
much
information
about
financial
issues
in
the
paper.
What
I
read
leads
me
to
conclude
that
there
have
been
financial
problems
for
some
time
and
I
wonder,
has
groundwork
operated
with
a
financial
deficit
over
the
years.
It's
an
ongoing
situation
and
they've
not
been
able
to
square
the
budget,
or
is
it
something
that's
happened
recently,
they've
they've
had
good
income,
etc
and
then
something's
blown
them
off
course,
and
it
is
the
merger
that's
proposed
predicated,
and
I
think
that's.
What
adrian
was
I
think
saying
to
us.
A
J
J
I
think
I
think
many
organizations
in
the
third
sector
obviously
clearly
struggle
in
terms
of
their
balance
sheet
and
the
impact
of
income
and
stability
looking
forward,
and
I
think
that
the
whole
proposal
around
this
is
around
seeking
to
create
a
position
where
the
new
organization
is
clearly
more
sustainable,
looking
forward,
because
it's
a
much
bigger
organization,
therefore
with
a
potential
bigger
region
and
can
do,
can
do
much
more.
It's
difficult
for
me
to
comment
upon.
J
If
the
didn't
merge,
what
would
be
the
financial
viability
of
groundwork
leeds
be
looking
forward
other
than
to
say?
I
think
it
would
continue
to
have
some
some
challenges
and
but
how
significant
those
challenges
would
be
would
be
dependent
upon
all
sorts
of
things
in
terms
of
future
programmes
and
income
streams,
and
all
of
that
which
are
always
pretty
uncertain.
K
K
We
did
try
to
make
reference
within
that
at
what
the
financial
output
was
been
for.
The
organization
based
on
the
fact
that
have
they
actually
realized
the
numbers
that
were
forecast
within
the
three-year
business
plan,
and
it
is
difficult,
as
you
alluded
to
there
james
for
us
to
be
clear
as
to
whether
or
not
the
worst
case
scenario
will
happen,
what
officers
sought
to
do
in
advance
of
executive
board
within
sections.
K
Forgive
me
four
point.
Four.
Two
through
two
four
point,
four,
four.
Five.
Sorry
four
point:
four
four
was
to
give
some
due
regard
to
what
the
impact
had
been
the
present
position,
what
the
impact
of
covid
may
or
may
not
have
been
on
the
business
case,
and
that
was
outlined
to
executive
board
in
terms
of
previous
trading
arrangements.
K
K
Whether
the
assumptions
in
the
business
plan
would
materialize
I.e
whether
it
was
capable
of
achieving
a
surplus
position.
So
we
spent
quite
a
bit
of
time
over
the
last
two
or
three
years,
looking
at
position
and
reviewing
the
position,
because
I
think
if
we,
if
we
go
back
to
2015
2016
time,
the
combined
organization
was
making
deficits.
K
So
a
concern
to
the
council
was
to
for
us
to
determine
with
reasonable
accuracy,
never
going
to
be
able
to
do
it
100
accuracy,
but
with
reasonable
accuracy.
Whether
there
was
a
a
chance
of
achieving
the
proposed
surpluses.
The
budgeted
services
in
the
business
plan-
and
I
think
the
evidence
that
we've
got
in
front
of
us
now
in
2020-
is
that
by
and
large
those
planned
surpluses
have
been
achieved.
K
So
I
think
there's
the
trajectory
of
the
financial
performance
of
the
merged,
the
collaborat
collaborative
entity.
If
you
like
it,
it
has
been
upwards
and
it
is
now
in
in
a
surplus
position,
and
it
has
been
for
the
last
two
two
or
three
years,
which
does
give
us
some
comfort
and
even
in
the
with
recent
events
with
with
covid.
K
I
think
adrian
will
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
but
it
is
still
planning.
We
are
forecasting
a
surplus
in
the
current
financial
year
which,
whilst
not
as
not
as
large
as
the
the
business
plan,
assumption
I
think,
given
that
the
situation
we
find
ourselves
in
that
it's
probably
unrealistic
to
expect
that
to
happen,
but
nevertheless
the
surplus
is
still
forecast
for
current
year.
J
I
respond
responsible,
I
think,
from
from
a
legal
perspective,
all
all
executive
board
are
doing
is
giving
their
support,
as
a
member
of
groundwork
leads
as
a
charitable
organization
for
it
to
progress
with
with
the
merger,
we
haven't
stipulated
any
requirement
to
report
back,
but
there
is
no.
We
will
obviously
continue
to
work
closely
as
officers
with
groundwork
yorkshire.
J
When
the
merger
proceeds
we've
got
members
on
the
board,
which
gives
us
some
reassurance
that
we're
still
close
to
the
new
entity,
and
I
don't
see
any
reason
why,
in
due
course,
there
couldn't
be
a
report
back
to
update
members
over
all
of
things.
They
can
be
bored
on
progress
of
the
merger
and
how
things
have
developed.
A
C
C
Who
was
one
of
the
originators
working
with
the
youth
offenders
and
volunteering
for
other
people's
gardens
and
things.
We
know
a
lot
of
that
has
gone
by
the
buy,
because
now
it's
a
company
business.
I
hope
we're
not
going
to
forget
that
and
I
think
somewhere
along
the
line,
frank
should
be
mentioned
and
other
people
who
started
this
because
it
certainly
moved
off
from
what
it
originally
was.
But
I
just
hope
that
these
city
council
aren't
going
to
be
left
in
a
position
of
any
bailing
out.
C
A
I
Yes,
sure
I
mean,
I
think,
can
I
thank
all
the
all
the
colleagues
well
for
for
their
of
their
contributions.
I'd
just
like
to
add
that
the
grand
berkeley
is
is
a
very
valuable
second
organization
leads
and
merging
with
neighboring
groundwork.
Organizations
will
provide
stability,
improve
project
or
prospects
of
income
generation
will
therefore
safeguard
the
delivery
of
projects,
programs
and
activities
by
the
organization
in
lees.
I
So
that's
the
whole
idea
of
the
merger
and
as
a
member
as
quite
james,
then
others
have
quite
yeah
correctly
pointed
out.
We,
as
as
the
executive
board
of
the
council,
were
a
member
of
of
that
organization,
so
taking
all
that
into
account,
we've
we've
actually
made
that
decision.
So,
given
what
we
heard
today
and
and-
and
I
hope
the
members
will
support
to
release
of
this
year,
thank
you.
A
G
That's
better
yeah,
thanks
yeah.
I
I
think
the
discussion
this
afternoon
has
been
quite
useful
and
quite
valid.
One
of
the
things
that
slightly
concerns
me
is
that
the
general
tenor
of
the
questions
and
responses
doesn't
do
full
justice
to
the
extremely
lengthy
and
rigorous
rigorous
exercise
that
the
leads
board
in
particular
and
to
be
fair.
The
other
two
groundwork
boards
have
applied
to
this
exercise
since
around
about
2015-16.
G
The
three
trusts
set
up
what
we
generally
call
or
loosely
called
the
partnership
board,
which
had
equal
representation
from
all
of
the
three
constituent
trusts
and
whose
brief
was
to
steer
and
oversee
the
ways
in
which
more
effective
future
working
could
be
achieved.
I
have
represented
leads
on
that
partnership.
Board
houses
did
my
predecessor
as
chair
of
leeds
stuart
becker.
G
G
Just
one
other
comment
in
terms
of
is
merger:
the
only
option
are
there
any
other
options.
I
think
various
people
have
commented.
All
three
trusts
over
the
last
four
or
five
years
have
been
operating
at
the
margins
of
solvency
and
if
you
look
at
the
accounts,
we
all
have
published
accounts
that
the
evidence
is.
Is
there
starkly
we
have
achieved
by
operating
within
this
loose
partnership,
some
phenomenal
savings
of
economies
of
scale
and
operational
costs?
G
Adrian
and
his
team
are
servicing
three
independent
boards
on
a
regular
meeting
cycle.
We
are
operating
different
it
systems.
There
are
some
substantial,
still
financial
synergies
that
we
can
achieve.
So
from
my
personal
point
of
view
and
as
chair
of
the
leads
board,
I
think
the
case
for
merger,
formal
merger
has
been
well
researched,
well
debated
and
is
there
to
be
made
I'll
leave
my
comments.
There.
A
E
Thank
you,
chad,
yes,
and
can
I
thank
everyone?
Who's
attempted
to
meet
in
the
offices
and
and
members
of
the
board.
I
think
it's
been
given
a
very
thorough
airing
and
I'm
you
know
I'm
satisfied
with
the
way
the
the
way
it's
gone
and
that
we've
been
heard.
The
the
calling
has
been
heard
and
questions
been
answered.
E
E
We
have
a
conclusion
of
the
review
in
the
paper
that
says
there
was
no
reason
for
the
merger
not
to
take
place,
but
also
there
was
no
immediate
requirement
to
merge
what
would
be
useful
in
in
in
the
paper
and
and
if
it's
available
it'd
be
useful
to
see.
It
is
some
analysis
of
where
the
value
is
added
from
the
merger.
We're
saying
we're
getting
everything
out
of
the
bhp
review,
but
we're
going
to
merge
what
is
the
value
added
of
the
merger
and
okay?
E
I
don't
think
it's
going
to
change,
so
I
don't
think
there's
enough
transparency
about
the
legal
merger,
the
benefits
of
legal
merger
rather
than
working
in
the
current
partnership
federation,
whatever
you
want
to
call
it
so
so
that
that
that
sort
of
my
main
point-
and
I
think
if
we
could
get
or
see
whenever
I've
asked
a
question
wherever
the
questions
have
come
in
the
answers
from
the
officers
and
from
the
groundwork
team
is
oh,
yes,
we've
done
that!
We've
got
that!
Well,
let's
see
it.
E
Let's
have
that
transparency,
the
due
diligence
that
people
talked
about
the
bhp
that
wasn't
a
due
diligence,
that
was
a
review
of
operations
which
produced
a
business
plan
which
they
said
was
viable.
When
I
talk
about
due
diligence,
if
three
organizations
are
merging
like
in
the
commercial
world,
when
organizations
are
merging,
you
do
due
diligence
on
the
financial
performance,
everything
in
each
of
those
three
organizations
to
see
what
the
new
organization
is
taking
on,
there's
no
evidence
of
that
as
due
diligence
and
again
counselor
rafiq.
E
E
And
it's
not
only
this
meeting
that
I've
been
asking
questions.
I
had
a
briefing
with
the
director.
I
had
a
briefing
with
officers
asking
the
same
questions
and
not
got
the
responses,
and
I
think
not
only
is
councillor
fleet,
perhaps
reading
a
different
paper.
I
think
he
must
be
at
a
different
meeting,
because
I
wasn't
at
the
exec
board
meeting.
He
tells
me
all
the
things
I
was
saying
and
asking
so
I
councillor
golton
was
there
and
simply
highlighted
the
fact
that
there
was
a
reference
paper.
E
E
I
hope
they
do
and
I
hope
the
merger,
if
they
do
and
the
merger
is
viable.
It
goes
ahead
and
produces
increased
performance
and
expands
the
work
of
groundwork,
which
I
I
thoroughly
support,
but
based
on
the
paper
and
based
on
what
I've
heard
today,
I
don't
think
it
should
be
supported
to
go
forward.
I
think
it
should
have
go
back
and
get
get
some
of
these
answers.
That
people
say
are
there
just
just
submit
them
right.
That's
all.
Thank
you.
A
I
It
wasn't
council
bent
there
was
councillor
golden
at
the
meeting
who
raised
raised
the
raised
some
questions
about
the
the
report
executive
board
and
the
primary
you
know
point
councillor
gel
golden
race
was
about
the
victory
alone
and
the
fact
that
we
may
not
been
aware
of
it
when
it
came
to
executive
board,
and
that
was
answered
that
you
know
very
well
and
in
detail
that
we
were
well
aware
of
the
report
and
the
fact
that
leads
are
set.
Now.
I
Can
I
just
say
I
mean,
despite
the
fact
we've
gone
through
and
I
think
some
you
know
some
really
valid.
Questions
have
been
asked
by
and
trying
to
get
to
the
conclusion
and
talking
about
the
the
financial
stability
of
of
the
organization
and
the
reasons
behind
this
merger,
and
I
think
I
think
the
way
trevor
lincoln
somebody
operates.
Is
you
know
it's
not
rocket
science
that
given
the
financial
climate
within
at
the
moment
and
given
how
we
you
know,
particularly
those
in
public
and
indeed
the
private
sector,
the
way
we
affected?
I
I
think
I
think
it
doesn't.
It
makes
sense
to
actually
to
merge
background
office
functions
and
to
reduce
those
costs.
So
I
think
I
think,
the
other
the
the
questions
chair
without
going
in
for
too
long
I've-
those
if,
if
some
some
of
us
had
any
concerns,
I
think
they've
been
answered
for
there
and
I
recommend
that
the
decision
is
released
and
and
we
move
forward
with
it.
A
A
The
default
position
is
number
is
option.
One.
The
default
position
is
option
one,
but
we've
heard
some
comments
today
and
when
I
got
my
briefing
on
this
beforehand,
I
made
similar
comments,
for
example,
in
terms
of
the
exec
board
report
under
item
7,
where
it
says
background
documents
on
the
exec
board
report.
It
says
none
now.
A
number
of
you
know
is
there
any
way
we
can
make
comments
if
we
are
minded
to
go
with
option,
one
that
we
can
add
to
that
that
we
would
like
to
remind
officers
or
whoever
it
is.
A
We
need
to
remind
that
if
there
are
background
documents,
they
need
to
reference
them
in
the
in
the
report,
so
that
people
can
do
it.
The
example,
I
would
give
would
be
the
wakefield
board
report,
so
that
could
then
have
come
under
section
seven
and
that
might
have
got
some
of
the
other
reports
that
have
been
referenced,
which
I
think
have
answered.
Some
of
the
questions
that
have
been
raised
by
council
bentley
today
have
been
answered
by
some
of
the
other
documentation.
A
We've
also
had
mr
curtis
confirming
that,
whilst
they
hadn't
been
published
via
any
internet
source,
a
lot
of
the
documentation
that
the
board
had
discussed
three
minutes
in
that
had
been
properly
recorded,
so
that
could
have
been
made
available
to
exec
members
if
they
so
wish.
If
they
didn't
want
to
take
it
up,
that's
their
free
will.
The
other
thing
is
that
is
there
any
way
we
can
say
things
like
that
we
do
recommend
that
briefings
are
given
to
the
morally
all
six
morally
counsellors
as
to
what's
happening.
A
If
anything
was
to
happen
and
propose
to
happen
with
that
building
to
make
sure
that
that's
clearly
set
out-
and
you
know-
and
finally,
I
suppose
in
a
way
say
that
will
carlsday,
we
are
recommending
option
one,
but
we
would
recommend
that
as
many
background
papers
are
attached
to
this
decision
formally,
so
that
anyone
looking
back
in
a
few
months
time
would
be
able
to
get
access
to
those
information.
Is
that
feasible
or
possible,
or
what's
the
legal
position
on
those
particular
points.
L
You
could
certainly
if
the
board
is
in
agreement,
make
those
all
of
those
points
as
general
recommendations,
and
they
will
also
be
reflected
in
the
minutes.
What
you
can't
do
is
attach
any
caveats
to
implement
the
if
you.
So
if
you
decide
to
release
the
decision
it
is
released
and
that
you
can't
attach
caveats
to
that,
but
you
can
say
if
you
collectively
agree,
you
could
make
those
general
recommendations
and
they
will
be
reflected
in
the
minutes.
A
So
what
I'm
getting
at
now,
then,
if
this
is
addressed
to
the
board
members,
is
that
from
what
I
can
hear,
I
think
we
will
probably,
although
it's
not
formally
been
taken
yet
going
for
option
one
to
release
it.
Is
anybody
minded
to
try
and
make
the
other?
You
know
to
support
the
comments
I've
made
about
trying
to
attach
background
documents
as
a
matter
of
course,
by
just
referencing
them
at
the
back
of
paragraph
seven
on
the
report
and
the
other
things
kind
of
agreeing.
G
Well,
yes,
when
I
think
a
lot
of
the
questions
we
all
had
having
read
the
papers
have
been
succinctly
answered
by
colleagues
today
and
if
they
had
been
in
the
paper
more
transparently
than
that
would
have
been
helpful.
So
I
agree,
some
additional
appendices
would
have
been
helpful
and
also
in
the
general
comments,
I
hope
we
can
say
that
it
will
be
helpful
under
these
circumstances,
as
james
has
agreed
to
get
a
report
back
in
say,
six
months
time,
yeah.
A
L
A
Right
so
by
looking
around
the
members
present,
I
think
there
is
a
general
consensus
on
that
way
forward.
So
what
I'm
going
to
do
now
is
I'm
going
to
go
through
an
alphabetical
order
and
if
those
people
can,
let
me
know
whether
or
not
they
favor
option
one
or
option
two
an
option.
One
is
effectively
releasing
the
decision
from
implementation,
but
putting
the
additional
comments
alongside
it,
not
part
of
it,
but
alongside
it,
so
that
it
can
be
recorded.
A
A
B
Option
one
chair
with
the
the
side
request
for
additional
information.
I
think
we
also
mentioned
during
the
meeting
that
it'd
be
nice.
If
the
new
organization
was
able
to
have
more
transparency
on
its
website,
I
don't
know
whether
that's
something
we
can
put
as
a
side
request
as
well,
but
option
one
j.
L
B
L
A
A
B
A
That's
fine.
Thank
you.
Thank
you
right.
So
that's
been
sure
what
we
have
resolved
to
do
is
to
release
the
decision
for
implementation,
with
some
additional
comments
being
made
by
the
board
back
to
the
executive
board
and
also
to
the
relevant
officers
as
well.
Anything
you
want
to
add
becky
that
we
need
to
do.