Meeting documents

Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of Councillors Higgins, Miss Mawson and Deputy Mayor Councillor Mrs Woollard.

RESOLVED (unanimously):

That the minutes of the meeting held on 30 September 2015 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Mayor, subject to reference to 'Councillor Ms Bell' being replaced by 'Councillor Mrs S Jones' on the third line of the last paragraph of page 20, minute 50 and to lines two and three of page 21 being expanded to read 'the reasoning for deleting the Older People's Partnership Board from the motion'.

Councillors Michael Green, Howarth, M Tomlinson, Watts and Yates declared non-pecuniary interests in the item relating to the Report of the Boundary Committee (Electoral Review of Lancashire) [minute no. 56] as members of Lancashire County Council.
?

The Leader, Councillor Mrs Smith, presented the Report of the Cabinet meeting held on 4 November 2015. The report was seconded.

Councillor Bennett explained that a waiver to the Council?s Contract Procedure Rules was being requested in respect of this procurement as Capita was the only supplier who was able to supply all the modules required. Some individual modules could be purchased from a third party supplier but at a higher cost than from Capita, Purchasing all the modules from Capita would enable the Council to implement the new functionality more quickly and at a lower price. He assured Council that every procurement was looked at in its own right and standing order 44 (Waiver of Contract Procedure Rules) was invoked only when it was considered appropriate.

RESOLVED (unanimously) that:
1) The report be noted;
2) Capita Self-Service Functionality ? Online Customer Access to Council Tax, Business Rates and Housing Benefit Details
(i) That the implementation of the Capita self-service functionality and the Capita creditors modules for use by Revenues and Benefits be approved and authority be granted under Section 3.4 of the Financial Regulations to incur capital expenditure of ?89,500 to be drawn from ICT Reserves.
(ii) That the waiver of all relevant Contract Procedure Rules (including paragraph 11.3) to allow for the implementation of the Capita modules be approved.

Councillor Titherington presented the report of the meetings of the Scrutiny Committee held on 20 October and 10 November. The report was seconded.

In response to questions from Councillors Clark and Yates about the rationale for, and the procedures followed at, the meeting on 20 October, Councillor Titherington explained that a decision could be called in by five councillors or at the prerogative of the Scrutiny Committee chairman. On this occasion he had consulted the vice-chairman and had called in the decision in a letter to the Scrutiny & Performance Officer in which he had laid out the reasons for the call-in. He understood that all councillors were made aware that the call-in meeting was taking place and of the reasons for the call-in.

Councillor Titherington explained that it was for the Scrutiny Committee to consider at a call-in meeting whether the decision should stand or whether it should be sent back for further consideration. Having listened to the Leader and Chief Executive respond to the Scrutiny Committee, the committee had decided that the decision should stand.

Councillor Clark said he still had concerns about how and whether members of the public would know why the decision had been called in. Councillor Titherington said that, as far as he was concerned, all appropriate procedures had been complied with.

The Leader reported that the Boundary Committee had met immediately before this Council meeting and learned that the Local Government Boundary Commission for England had essentially accepted the proposals submitted by this Council, the Conservative Group and the Labour Group. Consultation on the commission?s published draft recommendations had commenced earlier in the week and ran until 11 January 2016 so anybody wishing to put forward alternative proposals for consideration by the commission could do so. The report was seconded.

Councillor M Tomlinson was pleased with the commission?s recommendations and thanked officers of this council, James Wallwork in particular, for their assistance in generating maps.

There were no questions.

Finance & Resources

Councillor Foster had submitted the following written question to the Cabinet Member for Finance & Resources in advance of the meeting.

?The issue of s 106 contributions and the governance surrounding the administration and allocation of these funds is a matter that has been subject to ongoing debate for some considerable time. As long as 2 years ago Officers were requested (through My Neighbourhood Forums) to provide specific detail which has not been found to be forthcoming. Therefore, in light of recent events, and in the interest of clarity and transparency, can you please supply the Council with the following information regarding all s106 contributions:-

i) the cash balances (GBP) of all s106 contributions currently being held by the Council and for how long they have been in receipt;
ii) please specify the number of s106 agreements currently in existence, and inform of the number with any conditions relating to spend attached to particular agreements (open space/public realm in particular areas);
iii) inform the Council of the method of payment agreed with developers including any that allow for the payment to be made on an incrementally staged basis, known as "on the drip";
iv) please clarify for Council the agreed procedure for the allocating such monies to particular projects, including, level of consultation and the decision making process. And how these are reported to Council;
v) please advise the Council the number and monetary value of all s106 agreements that have not been receipted/are no longer deemed valid during the past 5 years (for example, the developer renegotiates the original scheme/the scheme proposed to expend the s106 does not meet the agreed criteria).?
Councillor Bennett thanked Councillor Foster for the opportunity to explain the steps he had already started to take to ?clear the patchy fog? that appeared to have accumulated around certain parts of the borough in relation to money received from planning agreements.

The Council currently had 58 S106 agreements against which it held cash totalling ?3.505 million, of which ?3.043 million related to 40 S106 agreements where funding had still to be formally committed to projects. All the money that the Council received under S106 agreements was subject to legal constraints in one form or another, varying from agreement to agreement, with some being site specific or for certain types of expenditure to mitigate the impact of a development on the local area. Councillor Bennett provided a breakdown of the number and value of S106 agreements by category, e.g. 30 S106 agreements to the value of ?436,000 for public open space and 4 S106 agreements to the value of ?1.891 million for affordable housing.

Councillor Bennett explained that there was only one S106 agreement where payment was being made other than in accordance with the original terms of the signed agreement, referred to as ?on the drip? in Councillor Foster?s question, and this related to a development at Tramway Lane, Bamber Bridge.

Councillor Bennett said he would be more than happy to answer questions surrounding individual developments or agreements causing Councillor Foster concern if he could provide more details but would prefer not to waste officers? time trawling through archives ?just for the sake of it?.

Councillor Bennett said he thought that the process for allocating S106 money was quite clear, with the corner stone being the identification of projects through the My Neighbourhood Forums & planning process, and projects which supported the Council?s corporate objectives and broader ambitions for the borough, such as through the City Deal programme.

He revealed that he planned to meet with each of the My Neighbourhood chairs and vice-chairs to explain how the My Neighbourhood Plans could be used to influence the Corporate Plan and Budget spending plans. He would also share details of the relevant S106 money received by the Council as a consequence of developments in each of the five areas.
Councillor Bennett concluded that he hoped the fog would have truly been lifted on S106 money by the time the Corporate Plan and Budget was approved in March 2016 but he urged members to focus on projects and to let members of the Cabinet ?worry about the money?.

Councillor Foster thanked Councillor Bennett for his response which, he said, contained more detail about S106 money than members had been able to obtain over a number of years and asked if, given the level of detail, Councillor Bennett might provide it in writing. This was an extremely important issue with very large sums involved and the Labour Group?s alternative budget would recommend that S106 money was released to the My Neighbourhood Areas. Councillor Foster noted that some authorities produced a twice-yearly report on S106 money and said this Council?s members wanted more transparency on the issue themselves and he would like to see more detail about where the committed monies were actually allocated to. He said that there were numerous projects throughout the borough which could be completed with the injection of small amounts of money.

Councillor Bennett said that he had discussed with Councillor Ogilvie the possibility of S106 being considered annually as part of the Governance Committee work programme in much the same way as the Capital Programme was. He went on to say that as part of next year?s budget process Cabinet members had been looking at projects which needed moving forward. Any members with queries were welcome to contact Councillor Bennett direct.

In response to a question from a member of the public about how the Council was planning to finance the increase in members? allowances in the current financial year and beyond, Councillor Bennett pointed out that the authority had benefitted from paying very low allowances for a decade or more and had continued to make efficiency savings across the board. Although the details of the new Comprehensive Spending Review were not yet known, the increase in members? allowance was relatively small in the grand scheme of things.

Housing & Healthy Communities

Councillor Ms Bell rose to remind Council that at its meeting on 9 September, Cabinet rejected a number of the recommendations in the Scrutiny Committee?s Review of Loneliness and Social Isolation affecting Older People, including that of becoming a Dementia Friendly Borough. She pointed out that at the meeting of Council on 30 September, Council decided that South RIbble would become a dementia friendly borough. She asked Councillor Green to explain therefore why he had approved a press release to be issued on 7 October in which he stated inaccurately that Cabinet had agreed to become a Dementia Friendly Borough.

Councillor Michael Green replied that when the report of the Scrutiny Committee review was presented earlier in the year, it was lacking in quantifiable data. He had met with the chairman of the Scrutiny Committee and suggested that the committee should come back with more detail, which was an opportunity that he, as a former member of the Scrutiny Committee himself, would have grasped. He accepted that Councillor Ms Bell was correct in saying that Cabinet did not commit at that time to becoming a Dementia Friendly Borough but it did commit to training all frontline staff. In the intervening period he had been able to announce at a meeting of the Scrutiny Committee that Cabinet had decided to become a Dementia Friendly Borough. He went on to say that the matter had become very political and there was no need for it to have been taken to Council as Council had essentially already agreed to become a Dementia Friendly Borough. He maintained that the press release was correct in that Cabinet colleagues had agreed to become a Dementia Friendly Borough.

Councillor Foster challenged the facts in Councillor Michael Green?s response to Councillor Ms Bell, saying that the Cabinet made decisions at meetings of the Cabinet which were open to other Councillors to attend. It was a fact that Cabinet had rejected becoming a Dementia Friendly Borough. He asked Councillor Michael Green to withdraw his misleading statement to Council.

The Leader said it was not right and proper for the leader of the opposition to challenge what Councillor Michael Green had said as her recollection was the same as that of Councillor Michael Green.

Councillor Titherington queried the accuracy of some of the points in Councillor Michael Green?s response to Councillor Ms Bell and expressed concern at the level of criticism that had been levelled at the review. He took the opportunity to pay tribute to Councillor Mrs S Jones who had chaired the task group so well and to remind Councillor Michael Green that the report had been issued in March. There had been no response from the Cabinet Member for quite some time and when the response came it had dealt with only one of the recommendations in the report. Councillor Titherington had queried this when he had met with Councillor Michael Green and had asked him to give consideration to the rest of the recommendations. At no stage had Councillor Titherington refused to work with the Cabinet Member.

Neighbourhoods & Street Scene

A member of the public said he had been disappointed when attending a recent My Neighbourhood Forum meeting that there had been no senior officer representation from the Neighbourhoods and Street Scene service. He had wished to raise a longstanding issue and asked why there had been no senior officer present from that service area.

Councillor Mullineaux explained that named officers were assigned to My Neighbourhood Forums and other officers would not normally attend unless specifically asked to do so. He urged the member of the public to contact him if he felt there was a need for such an officer to attend in the future so that he could consider the request.

Regeneration & Leisure

In response to a question from Councillor Yates about decision making, Councillor P Smith pointed out that the processes for signing off S106 money spend and core funding were quite different but worked well and there were no plans to change them.

Councillor M Tomlinson enquired about progress on the Leyland Master Plan and Councillor P Smith confirmed that there was nothing significant to report at this stage but that he hoped some work would start shortly.

In response to a question from Councillor K Jones, Councillor P Smith said that consideration was being given to floodlighting the WW1 memorial.

In response to a question from Councillor Wharton, the chairman of the Scrutiny Committee, Councillor Titherington, said that he did not know how much it had cost to hold the call-in meeting on 20 October and said that it was not possible to ?put a price on democracy?.

Councillor Martin agreed to look into and provide an emailed response to Councillor Bennett about what might have led to one of the Friends of Hurst Grange Park telling him that s/he had been told at a My Neighbourhood Forum event that, in relation to Hurst Grange Park, an unspecified project was not being pursued and that the Council was disposing of an unspecified building.

There were no questions.

The Leader presented the report which set out the proposal, rationale and process for establishing a Lancashire Combined Authority. It outlined the findings of the Governance Review undertaken and set out the next steps and recommendations in establishing a Combined Authority.

The Leader predicted that before long the county would be surrounded by combined authorities working together and she said that this authority needed to be in a position to ensure it got its fair share of what was on offer from the government. She was well aware that some members, including herself, had some concerns but South Ribble Borough Council was the first to debate it in a formal Council meeting and was in principle looking to take the next step to go out to consultation. The report was seconded.

Councillor Foster acknowledged that this was a very important issue for the Council and assured the Leader that the Labour Group would endeavour to support her and input in whatever way it could. The lengthy appendix to the report was not inspiring and he looked forward to learning more about the scrutiny arrangements in particular. He suspected that whatever proposals were put forward, central government would require there to be an elected Mayor, something that the Labour Group thought Lancashire should embrace.

Councillor Bennett endorsed the comments expressed by the Leader and Councillor Foster and said that the most striking omission from the appendix seemed to be ?what was in it for us?. He took the opportunity to thank Chorley?s Leader, Councillor Alistair Bradley, for his enthusiastic leadership on the project but expressed his disappointment with Wyre?s position.

Members on all sides of the table rose to support in principle the recommendations in the report but lamented the quality of the appendix and expressed their hopes that future reports would be more detailed in outlining what a Combined Authority could deliver for Lancashire and for South Ribble in terms of both benefits and disbenefits. It was unlikely that the public would engage with the consultation without more ?meat on the bones? and it needed to be made clear that a combined authority was not intended to introduce an additional level of local government nor was it about merging existing councils. It was an opportunity to take powers from central government and to take more decisions locally. There was consensus that such devolution of powers would be good for district councils and having a greater say in transport issues would be very much welcomed.

In summing up the Leader said that if a combined authority was good for this borough it would be good for the entire county. There was still much to be debated, including the issue of an elected mayor and perhaps also the very term ?combined authority?. Most existing combined authorities were made up by the Leaders of their constituent local authorities and the fact that each authority would have one equal vote was ?brilliant?. She fully agreed with members? comments about the dullness and lack of vision in the appendix and said that it would be desirable to have a parallel document outlining a vision and an ?ask? which would bring it to life. There was much to be done to bring the document to life before it was submitted to the minister.

RESOLVED (unanimously) that:
1) The contents of the report be noted;
2) The contents of the Lancashire Governance Review and recommendations therein be noted;
3) The contents of the draft Scheme for a Combined Authority be noted;
4) The Council agree to take part in the public consultation in January/February which will seek views on the formation of a Combined Authority for Lancashire;
5) The Council agree to consider the feedback from the public consultation and note that following this, those authorities who wish to form a Lancashire Combined Authority will submit a proposal to the Secretary of State for consideration;
6) The Council agree in principle to becoming a constituent member of the Combined Authority for Lancashire, and
7) The Council give final consideration to becoming a constituent member of a Lancashire Combined Authority at its meeting in March 2016.