Meeting documents

Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of Councillors Mrs Ball, Hancock, Higgins, Watts and Yates.

There were no declarations.

Councillor Clark referred to the Report of the Scrutiny Committee (min. no.55 refers). In respect of the committee?s decision to call-in a delegated decision, he commented that the minute inferred that the question of who had actually called-in the decision had been clarified at the meeting of the council. This had been subsequently been clarified following dialogue between Councillor Clark and the chairman of the Scrutiny Committee (Councillor Titherington) in which the latter had confirmed he had called-in the delegated decision.

RESOLVED (unanimously):
That subject to above clarification, the minutes of the meeting held on 18 November 2015 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Mayor.

The Mayor provided an update on the events she had recently attended and her forthcoming engagements.

Councillor Bennett (Finance & Resources) reported on the urgent decision to provide council tax and business rate relief for those properties affected by Storm Eva for which the council had invoked its emergency plan. The borough had been fortunate not to have had the severe flooding in Croston and Whalley, whilst there had been issues with the River Darwen and River Lostock, the main problem in South Ribble had been surface water draining. There were learning points from this and there would be a review of arrangements due to the sporadic nature of the issues which had affected places not previously affected.

Councillor Bennett informed members that there was a meeting with the Environment Agency on 2 February 2016 and invited those councillors in wards affected to attend and he would email details to members.
?

Councillor Mrs Moon (Cabinet member for Corporate Support) presented the report on the council?s Localisation of Council Tax Support Scheme stating this was almost identical to that submitted last year. In moving the report, Councillor Mrs Moon reported an alteration to recommendation 2.4 and apologised for the very short notice of the change. This was because the level of deduction was likely to be affected by any increased precepts by other tax raising bodies. Therefore recommendation 2.4 was to be substituted for last year?s equivalent recommendation taking account of date changes.

Councillor Foster was critical of this very late change to a report which affected people?s pockets. This policy was a result of central government?s welfare reforms and changes to council tax benefit which were now biting and affecting the most in need (100s of families in the borough). People and families were now struggling to afford food as seen with increased use of food banks. The working tax credit reforms had been repealed and this scheme was another bad policy and should not be allowed to continue. All Labour members would vote against today, proposing that in its place the council adopt the statutory prescribed scheme. The council should support those that are most in need and this cost be met by the council, not the working poor. He urged members opposite to vote against adopting the presented scheme and support the statutory scheme and let the council meet the cost.

Councillor Forest commented that this policy had been referred to as a local poll tax. Until the changes in the benefit system, people in receipt of benefit had not paid towards council tax, this had been introduced at ?2.90 per week rising to the current ?3.50 per week. How much would the next increase be? Those benefit recipients on ?73.15 currently had to find the equivalent of two weeks of benefit to pay their contribution. When introduced by central government it was aimed at the least able to pay ? adult unemployed as senior citizens were exempt from paying this contribution. Nationally 1000s of people had had to find this money and any members who were Justices of the Peace would know how futile it was to fine those on benefit. He added that locally figures in the Chorley Guardian showed an increase in the number of summons/liability orders issued. This was reflected across the country as a consequence of this ridiculous legislation. Councillor Forest asked members to think seriously about what they were doing bearing in mind there were further welfare benefit cuts still to come. Again across the country council officers had tried to lessen the impact with hardship payments, as had central government through the DWP. Central government having to pay for this tax highlighted its stupidity. He also understood that the cost of this taxation was only just covered by the amount collected.

Councillor K Jones commented that this was ideologically discriminatory as it took money from the poorest/weakest in the community to enable central government to give tax cuts to the wealthy. He was sure members opposite had consciences but would no doubt have been whipped to vote in favour of this scheme. Shame on you.

Councillor Michael Green commented that the increase in the contributions had been caused by increases in council tax precepts elsewhere (such as the county council and police). He suggested members lobby the county council, police and fire authority. At that point he declared a personal interest as an elected member of Lancashire County Council. Any further increase in those authorities? council tax precepts would probably cause an increase in the level of contribution paid by benefit recipients under the Localisation of Council Tax Support Scheme.

In respect of the foregoing comment Councillor Titherington suggested that any lobbying should be to reduce the onus on the vulnerable in society and asked if Councillor Green would lobby central government (which had introduced this scheme as part of its welfare reforms). Councillor Titherington would lobby and he hoped members opposite would also.

Councillor Mrs Moon in response to Councillor Nelson indicated that a liability order was not as perceived and was an administrative process through the courts to confirm that a debt belonged to a person. Whilst some people might choose to attend court a large majority made arrangements to pay the council outside the court. In respect of the scheme she commented that there had not just been conservative members in the council chamber when the council had previously adopted the scheme unanimously. Tonight?s presented report related to the method on how the scheme was implemented (flat rate opposed to percentage) not the level of contribution. Residents had previously been consulted on the method and had chosen the flat rate, which was the easiest to understand and implement. The council?s Scrutiny Committee had also previously looked at the scheme and had with comments been in favour of a flat rate scheme. The Cabinet member accepted the criticism about the very late changes to the report. She had hoped that the council tax precepts of the other tax raising bodies in Lancashire would not increase but this was not in her gift and now looked unlikely. Councillor Mrs Moon also referred to Street Life on social media and recent feedback which indicated that those who could pay should and those who could not be supported. She confirmed that she would lobby and that the DWP should also be lobbied. The Cabinet members understood people?s feelings and would do what she could to protect people and recommended the council adopt a flat rate scheme.

Councillor Foster felt the only fair way forward was to vote against the scheme and adopt the statutory prescribed scheme where those who could not pay would not pay.

Councillor Bennett (Cabinet member for Finance & Resources) indicated that this debate was part of the council?s budgetary process (with implications of approximately ?80,000). He was happy for any member of the council to lobby and welcomed any suggestion(s) on potential budgetary savings to off-set this amount.

RESOLVED (For 28, Against 17) that:
1. delegated authority be granted to the Director of Governance and Business Transformation in consultation with the Cabinet member for Corporate Support to make all necessary updates to this Council?s Council Tax Support Scheme to comply with any prescribed requirements that may be issued by central government. This may be by the making of specific regulations, or by amendment to the Local Government Finance Acts of 1992 and 2012;
2. delegated authority be granted to the Director of Governance and Business Transformation in consultation with the Cabinet member for Corporate Support to make all necessary amendments to the Council?s scheme to uprate the allowances and premiums in accordance with the revised HB Circular when it is issued by the DWP. This process is a requirement of the prescribed elements of the scheme;
3. the updated scheme in accordance with the Local Government Finance Act 2012 be publicised; and
4. the level of the deduction to be applied to Working Age recipients of Council Tax Support from the 1 April 2016 be finalised and agreed in accordance with South Ribble?s Scheme and as part of the Council?s Budget and Council Tax Setting at the Council Meeting on the 2 March 2016. This figure will continue to be within the range consulted upon during the introduction and implementation of the council?s scheme in 2012.
?

Councillor Titherington presented the report of the meeting of the Scrutiny Committee held on 8 December 2015. The report was seconded.

Councillor Ogilvie was pleased to present the report of the meeting of the Governance Committee held on 25 November 2015. He referred to some of the items indicating this report contained highlights from that meeting and that the details were contained in the minutes. The report was seconded.

Referring to a recent report by the Commission on Religion and Belief in Public Life which suggested Britain was no longer a Christian country and should stop acting as if it was, Councillor Howarth questioned if it was still appropriate to impose prayers on councillors and the public before meetings of the council. The Leader had seen the report?s headlines commenting that the council had debated prayers a few years ago which had invoked strong feeling. At this point Councillor Howarth indicated it was 10 years ago. Personally, the Leader had no issue with having prayers but understood those that might find it more difficult. If the council was keen to look at this she was open to suggestions.

A member of the public raised concerns about the condition and management of the hall buildings in Worden Park. The Leader referred to the council?s current strategic asset review which included all building and was led by Councillor Bennett (Cabinet member for Finance & Resources). Councillor Bennett confirmed that this review covered all the council?s assets (including investment properties) across the borough. The review might suggest areas for further investment or be released. The interim report was currently expected to be presented to the council?s Scrutiny Committee in March and Worden Park will be included in that report.
?

Finance & Resources
In response to Councillor Howarth?s enquiry regarding the council?s ?50,000 allocation in Hurst Grange Park as part of ?400,000 project, Councillor Bennett was supportive and wanted to see something happen; he was surprised it was not more advanced. However, the council did not simply have a blank cheque as the plan being right for the community had yet to be proved. He added that the Cabinet member for Regeneration & Leisure was keen to work with the Chairman of the Penwortham My Neighbourhood Forum to move this forward.

Councillor Bennett responding to Councillor Foster?s compliment regarding the council?s intention to freeze the level of its portion of council tax, he paid tribute to former Councillor Stephen Robinson and those before him. The council had a good financial platform and could go forward with some confidence. The Cabinet had now met a few times and there would be a freeze in the level of this council?s portion of council tax for 2016/17, this was no secret as it had been in their group?s election manifesto.

Councillor Foster asked the Cabinet member if he would provide a full disclosure of allocated Section 106 monies in each My Neighbourhood Forum area indicating the current stage of investment. Councillor Bennett commented that the source of funding for My Neighbourhood Forum schemes was not solely Section 106 monies. If felt to be most appropriate it would be used first but sometimes there were restrictions on using those funds. He confirmed that he was liaising with the Chairman of the Governance Committee on the timing/frequency of this being discussed by the committee. He was also waiting for a mutually convenient date to meet the forum chairmen. He reminded members of the forthcoming Member Learning Hour on the budget (providing understanding behind the figures) and indicated that next budget would include a lot of investment. Councillor Bennett agreed to send Councillor Foster the requested information commenting the figures could possibly change in due course.

Housing & Healthy Communities
Councillor Michael Green responding to Councillor Ms Bell confirmed progress was being made on South Ribble becoming dementia friendly. The first stage was to set-up a local structure and the council was liaising with the Alzheimer Society. Work was underway on an introductory workshop which would include representatives from such as the local CCG, GPs, public health, carers and voluntary sector. The Alzheimer Society had volunteered to run the session which would look at what already existed in South Ribble and how this could be taken forward. This was fully supported by the South Ribble Partnership. The borough was faced with an ageing population and it was only right to look at access to the council, its services and buildings and support be given to people living with dementia. He recommended members attend the forthcoming workshop.

Neighbourhoods & Street Scene
Councillor Mullineaux stated he was happy to meet with Councillor Patten to further discuss the issues about the use of the car park on Ryefield Avenue, Penwortham.

A member of the public further raised concern that the council was still not taking advantage of Worden Park for entertainment events drawing comparison with the annual event in Lytham. He was advised that this aspect came within the Finance & Resources portfolio (Councillor Bennett). Councillor Bennett responded that he had recently met someone. The council might get someone interested in pursuing something at Worden Park, although it was likely any such scheme would need capital investment from the council.

Councillor Mullineaux in responding to a member of the public?s concerns and criticism regarding flooding he referred to a detailed written reply to concerns. If there were any further concerns the members of the public should provide details to which he would receive a reply.

In responding to another member of the public regarding water course number two and bunds Councillor Mullineaux confirmed there was no council policy not to inspect them. Whilst the council along with the Environment Agency looked at these they were the responsibility of the Environment Agency.
?

Councillor Ms Bell (chairman of the Leyland My Neighbourhood Forum) responding to Councillor M Tomlinson agreed with him that Boxing Day?s flooding on Western Drive had certainly brought out the community spirit with people pulling together and that Leyland Round Table and CW Berry and its staff should be applauded for their efforts to help those affected. She confirmed that she would be writing to thank these and others who had helped.

Councillor Michael Green concurred with the previous comments. He referred to the Leyland Christmas Event held on 28 November 2015 which had gone well with deep gratitude to those officers and members involved before and on the day that had made it a success. He asked Councillor Ms Bell if she knew how many people had signed up to attend the older people?s event as their attendance had been disappointing. Councillor Ms Bell agreed, unfortunately she did not have that information but understood about 20 people attended on the day and this could be looked at.
?

Councillor Ogilvie (Armed Forces Member Champion) responding to Councillor Woodcock indicated he was currently not aware of any further centenary events to commemorate WW1 but would inform/update members when he was.