Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of Councillors Clark, Hanson, Mrs Hothersall, K Jones, Mrs S Jones, Nelson, Suthers and Yates.

Councillor Evans declared a personal interest in agenda item 12 [min. no.50] as he was employed within the Samlesbury Enterprise Zone. Councillor Martin declared a personal interest in agenda items 5, 6, 7 and 8 [min. nos. 43, 46, 47 and 48] as an employee of Lancashire County Council.

RESOLVED (unanimously) that:
The minutes of the meeting held on 23 July 2014, be approved as a correct record and signed by the Mayor subject to the insertion of the words ?Aid & Sickness Charity? after the word ?Penwortham? on the second line of the first paragraph on page 19 [min. no.36].
?

The Leader commended the report of the meeting of the Cabinet held on 10 September. The report was seconded.

Housing Assistance Policy 2014
Councillor M Tomlinson welcomed the council?s adoption of this policy, noting this would help address the present delays with Disabled Facilities Grants (DFGs). Although, he was unclear what assistance would in future be given to applicants. The Cabinet member for Strategic Planning & Housing responded by reminding members of the history of DFGs (including recent issues with contracted service providers) and the council?s position/role in the process. The council looked at how to better manage and improve the service. He also referred to the additional funding the council had allocated over the years on top of its grant funding towards DFGs.

As at 29 September 2014, there were 108 applications on the waiting list, 45 rated high and 63 rated standard, as determined by Occupational Therapy. The estimated cost for all 108 applications was ?900,000. Of the 108 applications, 67 were currently in progress, 33 high and 34 standard at an estimated cost of ?500,000. These 67 applications were in various categories such as waiting for; returned forms, landlord approval, quotes, invoices, county council funding or had been completed.

Councillor Hughes indicated that the council would have used all the currently unspent DFG monies by end of March 2015. After 2015 onwards, this council would rely entirely on the DFG funding grant received directly from Lancashire County Council.

The Leader acknowledged that there were applicants that for various reasons might be vulnerable and need support. She confirmed that the council would help and assistance such individuals. The council was keen to process the applications as quickly as possible to customers? satisfaction.

The Cabinet member responding to a subsequent enquiry regarding applicant?s having to make a contribution, confirmed the government had made the rules (criteria) which the council had to take on board, such as the level of savings held that affected whether someone qualified or not for a DFG.

RESOLVED that:
1) the report be noted [unanimously];
2) Anti-Social Behaviour ? Community Triggers [unanimously]
i) the proposed Community Triggers as outlined in the report be adopted;
ii) the Director of Neighbourhoods, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods and Streetscene, be given delegated authority to designate social landlords in the borough to be part of the Community Trigger group of relevant bodies and/or to issue Community Protection Notices, and
iii) the Director of Neighbourhoods, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods and Streetscene, be given delegated authority to adjust the Community Triggers following any future review and subsequent recommendations from the Lancashire Anti-Social Behaviour group.
3) Community Infrastructure Levy ? Instalments Policy and Payment in Kind [unanimously]
i) the Community Infrastructure Levy ?Payment in Kind? policy as amended be adopted; and
ii) the Community Infrastructure Levy Instalments policy be adopted.
4) Housing Assistance Policy 2014 [unanimously]
i) the Housing Assistance Policy 2014 be adopted;
ii) the policy be published in accordance with the provisions of the Regulatory Reform (Housing Assistance) (England and Wales) Order 2002, with the policy coming into effect after the date of publication;
iii) the provisions of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996: Disabled Facilities Grant (Conditions Relating to Approval of Payment of Grant) General Consent Order 2008 (??the General Consent Order??) be adopted; and
iv) the grant conditions as outlined in Appendix 1 of the policy be approved and adopted.
5) Site Allocations and Development Management Policies Development Plan
Document (DPD) ? Proposed Further Modification [unanimously]
The Further Main Modification relating to Policy C4, the Cuerden Strategic site, for a six week consultation period and subsequent submission to the Planning Inspectorate be endorsed.
?

Councillor Titherington commended the report of the Scrutiny Committee meeting held on 12 August. The report was seconded.

Councillor Tomlinson asked the Leader if she had had time to reflect on the surprise result of the Office of National Statistics? (ONS) Wellbeing Survey, which had stated that South Ribble was one of the four least welcoming or happy places to live. Councillor Mrs Smith confirmed she had seen the article with surprise. Not long ago Leyland had been mentioned as one of the nicest places to be and live in. She had not received any feedback supporting the article and was interested to know how many people had been surveyed, the context/phrasing of the questions etc which the council could use to identify any possible underlying issues.

Councillor Forrest asked Councillor Mrs Smith if she had enjoyed here recent visit to the Dr Oetker plant. The Leader confirmed it was a good visit and the pizza had been a treat. It was a very interesting to go around the plant, find out about the Dr Oetker business and where it was going in the future, which had also indicated its commitment to Leyland. Councillor Mrs Smith added that she had now made a number of such visits to the larger businesses in the borough, and would be happy to continue these by visiting smaller businesses (such as high technology/engineering). Councillor Forrest was pleased to hear the Leader?s reply and wondered whether this visit to a German Company might lead to scope for the council to re-energise twinning arrangements in Europe. A first step could be reference on the council?s website to the borough?s twinning with Schleswig Flensburg.

Councillor Foster also referred to the Office of National Statistics? (ONS) Wellbeing Survey commenting that the ONS website listed its survey?s questions & answers. He quoted ?that people in the UK are happier, more satisfied and less anxious than at any time in the past 3 years. However, the least happy areas were found to be Barrow-in-Furness in Cumbria, Dartford in Kent, Torridge in Devon and South Ribble in Lancashire?.

Councillor Foster then suggested that the council?s administration was out of touch with the local community and asked the Leader to recognise that the borough?s residents were so unhappy because of the following:
? major health inequalities in the borough and, a refusal to adopt the healthy borough initiative championed by the scrutiny committee
? a lack of regeneration in the main hubs of Bamber Bridge, Leyland, Lostock Hall, Farington or Penwortham and yet monies were being spent in the Leader?s home village of Longton
? refusal to fully support or adopt the living wage
? refusal to adopt anti-blacklisting policies for local trades
? no support for local food banks (no conservative member supported a recent motion)
? failure of the Disabled Facility Grants that had let down 100s of needy residents
? failure of affordable housing as the second worse performing council in Lancashire
? under investment in parks and open spaces
? industrial action planned by staff to improve pay and conditions
? not ruling out in the future charging for some waste collection
? disregard for areas of the borough other than the western parishes
? zero hour contracts, wages frozen for 5 years or the unpopular bedroom tax
? the council is simply sat on ?14M of residents? money, as reserves

He asked the Leader if she would agree that the borough polled so badly because of the administration?s complacent/cavalier attitude and her divisive and dismissive Cabinet and, what was proposed to be done about it.

In response the Leader commented that she had thought Councillor Foster was going to tell her what questions were on the ONS?s website. She could not believe that the survey questions had included those topics mentioned such as the level of council reserves or food banks. A lack of expenditure on parks was untrue. The borough had some of the best parks with planned future investment. This council proposed to create a new Central Park, had any other council such plans. Councillor Mrs M Smith referred to examples of regeneration such as, Leyland (phases 1 & 2), Lostock Hall, Farington and, Wesley Street Mill. This year?s Capital Programme had included regeneration schemes in Leyland and Bamber Bridge, but not one member opposite had voted for it, if not wanted, a scheme could be pursued elsewhere.

The Leader pointed out that she did not live in Longton. However, investments had been moving around the borough and it was now in Longton. During her time on the council, the Leader could not remember such a scheme in the Western Parishes. The provision of affordable housing was associated with/dependent on a number of factors, particularly the level of building industry activity or lack of it. Which government had caused the country?s economic depression? The question of black lists and living wage had been discussed and resolved some months ago. Out of touch? ? people were getting back in to work with less than 2M unemployed and the level of this council?s element of council tax had been kept right down. In respect of the level of the council?s reserves, yes it was a good balance, which the council?s External Auditors had stated was fine. Councillor Mrs M Smith could not understand Councillor Foster.

Councillor W Bennett commented that a meeting of the council had passed a Notice of Motion addressing black listing. However, unfortunately the members opposite had left the council chamber and not taken part.

Councillor Crook referred to a delegated decision relating to a reduction in the number of council tree officers, with concern this might have a negative impact on trees across the borough. Councillor Mrs Smith commented that she lived in Whitestake which was very flat with few trees. She stated that she had every confidence in Neighbourhoods and Streetscene and was sure that if there were any subsequent issues they would be brought to her attention.

In response to a member of the public, the Leader had not felt the council had diminishing resources as such, although all governments had not given councils enough funding. The council was not out of touch and was performing very well. She again referred to the External Auditors who independent of the council had stated that the council was doing very well. The quality of the council?s accounts enabled it to undertake matters some others could not. There was still a long way to go, such as regeneration plans for other areas and she looked forward to those plans progress when back in power in 2015.
?

Deputy Leader, Neighbourhoods and Street Scene
Responding to Councillor Titherington, the Cabinet member confirmed that the rules of the council were followed. Councillor Titherington then referred to the discussion on the overflow car park in Worden Park at the last council meeting (min.no.27 refers). He suggested that reference to living wage and blacklisting had not been included in the tender process. This was despite a Notice of Motion on black listing being approved on 20 November 2013 (min. no.60 refers). The Cabinet member indicated that some information relating to black listing had been included but not the living wage.

Councillor Bell referred to a newspaper article regarding Worden Park and a recent public meeting. As Chairman of the Leyland Neighbourhood Forum she was unaware of this meeting and wondered had other members been invited/attended. The Cabinet member commented that there had been a meeting with the park?s tenants to which local ward members were invited. Councillor Hamman confirmed he and Councillor Ogilvie had been invited but it was not open to the public. Councillor Mullineaux confirmed this had been the first meeting with tenants and if the neighbourhood forum wanted, it was welcome to attend future meetings. He acknowledged they supported parks and were doing a good job. During the discussion it was subsequently clarified by a member of the press in the audience, that the public meeting referred to in the article had been the recent meeting of the council?s Scrutiny Committee.

Councillor Mullineaux confirmed he would respond in writing to Councillor C Tomlinson?s enquiry about how often the streets in Leyland covered by permit parking were patrolled.

Councillor Heyworth thanked the Cabinet member for his email concerning cars being parked by the football clubs using the pitches in Worden Park. He wondered if it would be made clear to the football clubs there would be severe penalties if cars continued to be parked on the road when the new overflow car park was ready. Councillor Mullineaux indicated that to impose penalties any cars needed to be parked illegally. If any team(s) were found to be parking deliberately the council could stop them using the football pitches. Although those parking, could be team supporters. The council was doing its best to put pressure on the football teams and an appropriate letter to be sent would put them on the spot.

Finance & Resources
Councillor W Bennett asked if the Cabinet member agreed that council finances were subject to party political debate. Also, that External Audit (EA) was independent and produced a factual report which for this council included: sound financial governance arrangements, well established approach to financial planning, being up to the challenge presented by the current financial climate (such as a funding gap going forward), and held a healthy level of reserves used to alleviate pressures in the short term allowing the council to develop appropriate solutions to future challenges. Councillor W Bennett also asked the Cabinet member if he agreed that at the start of the financial year the council had appeared to be approaching financial meltdown yet now appeared to have surplus cash.

Councillor Robinson (Cabinet member for Finance & Resources) concurred with Councillor W Bennett and that EA had given an opinion on Value for Money and the level of reserves (?14M) which included earmarked reserves such as for ICT, buildings etc. EA?s comments had included that this council was much more capable to cater with reduced grant funding which were anticipated. The council did not just look annually at its financial position but looked 2-4 years ahead. He was surprised with Councillor Foster?s earlier comments. The EA had consistently stated that this council was financially very sound and could withstand what the government threw at it.

In response to Councillor Titherington, Councillor Robinson confirmed that there was a practise to move some earmarked reserves into general reserves used by some other councils, not South Ribble. The Statement of Accounts showed the total level of reserves (both earmarked and general).

Responding to Councillor Forrest, the Cabinet member stated that council was not sitting smug on its reserves. In fact, as mentioned earlier by Councillor W Bennett the council currently faced a future funding gap of ?3M. If there were no reserves the council would be at risk, but the council dealt with realistic circumstances to the benefit of its residents.

Councillor Robinson replying to a member of the public commented in respect of the 2014/15 budget, that as yet he had not seen any proposed plans by the Labour group.

Regeneration, Leisure & Healthy Communities
Councillor Michael Green asked the Cabinet member if he was surprised at the Labour group?s comments about a lack of regeneration when those members had voted against the council?s budget and the provisions in it. Councillor P Smith confirmed he was, especially as there was a lot happening across in the borough (Leyland (phases 1 & 2), Penwortham, and Bamber Bridge). He commented that he and Councillor Foster had been looking at how to spend the regeneration funds in Bamber Bridge. Other aspects of regeneration in South Ribble were such as, the level of unemployment was 1.3%, Leyland Festival had been revived, gateway features to Leyland (such as fire engine & tank) and Christmas in Leyland.
?

There were no questions.

There were no questions.

RESOLVED [unanimously]:
that Councillor Yates be replaced by Councillor Marsh on the membership of both the General Licensing Committee and Licensing Act Committee.
?

Councillor Hughes reminded members that the Local Development Order for the Samlesbury Enterprise Zone removed the need for planning permission. Instead the council received a notification form at each stage of any proposed development, which it had to deal within 28 days. If not, the council would lose control. It was foreseen that there might be a problem dealing with these notifications within 28 days through the Planning Committee. It was therefore proposed to delegate determination of notifications to officers and that such notifications be added to the weekly list circulated to members.

Councillor Hughes moved the recommendation with additional wording, ?at the Samlesbury Enterprise Zone site, and subject to consultation with the Chairman of the Governance Committee?. This was seconded.

RESOLVED [unanimously]:
that an amendment to Part 3E of the Constitution, the Scheme of Delegation to Officers to include the determination of Prior Notification of Development subject to a Local Development Order at the Samlesbury Enterprise Zone site, and subject to consultation with the Chairman of the Governance Committee, be agreed.
?