Meeting documents

Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of Councillors Mrs B Nathan, M Nathan,
Ogilvie, Patten, C Tomlinson, and Woodcock.
?

There were no declarations of interest.

There was a request that the minutes be amended as follows

?

Min. No.81 (page 74) Questions to Members of the Cabinet (Finance)
That the following words be inserted at the start of the paragraph - ?In response to a question for an assurance that green waste charges would not be introduced?.

?

Min. No.81 (page 74) Questions to Members of the Cabinet (Regeneration & Leisure)
That the following words be inserted at the start of the third sentence ? ?In response to questions asking for an assurance that Leyland, Bamber Bridge and Penwortham Leisure Centres would not be closed?.

?

RESOLVED (For: 20, Against: 15, Abstain: 7 ):
That the minutes of the meeting held on 18 January 2017, as amended above, 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.

The Leader, Councillor Mullineaux, presented the report of the Cabinet meeting held on 20 February 2017. This only contained items requiring confirmation at this meeting of the council. The remaining items would be reported to the meeting of the council to be held on 29 March 2017. The report were seconded.

?

RESOLVED: that
1) Corporate Plan, Risk Management and Medium Term Financial Strategy
(a) Corporate Plan and Corporate Risk Register 2017-18
that the Corporate Plan for 2017-18 and the Corporate Risk Register for 2017-18 be approved.
(b) 2017/18 Budget and Medium Term Financial Strategy
that this item?be considered in conjunction with the next item on the council agenda (Item 6 ? Labour Group?s Alternative Budget and Medium Term Financial Strategy- min. no. 89 refers)
2) Treasury Management Strategy 2017/18 to 2019/20
that the following be approved:-
1. the Prudential Indicators for 2017/18 to 2019/20 (Appendix B);
2. the Treasury Management Strategy and Treasury Indicators for 2017/18 (including Table 9 in Appendix B);
3. the Annual Investment Strategy 2017/18 including Financial Institutions and Investment Criteria; and
4. the Annual Minimum Revenue Provision (MRP) Policy Statement 2017/18.

As mentioned above (min.no.88 (1)(b)) the Conservative Group?s 2017/18 Budget and Medium Term Financial Strategy was considered in conjunction with this item. The Labour Group?s alternative was dealt with as an amendment to the Conservative Group?s proposal.

?

The Cabinet member for Finance (Councillor Mrs Snape) addressed council and presented the Conservative Group?s Budget for 2017/18 and the Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) to 2020. This recognised the corporate risk process, priorities in the Corporate Plan and was aligned with the Treasury Management Strategy. There had been four key objectives - reducing the deficit, creating financial stability, ensuring decisions were in line with the corporate plan and ensuring there was minimum financial impact on the borough?s residents.

?

By using ?700,000 from reserves it allowed the council to again freeze its portion of council tax and avoid the introduction of a charge for the collection of green waste. Council was asked to endorse the level of reserves and also approve adjustments to earmarked reserves both for 2017/18.

?

In respect of meeting the MTFS new income streams (such as investment in business/development opportunities, review of parking charges, charging for replacement wheelie bins and, a charge for green waste and an increase in council tax in 2018/19) will be created and expenditure reduced. Although it was hoped to negate the latter two other sources of income allowed. This meant no contribution was needed from general reserves in 2019/20, retaining an ability to manage the financial risk of impending challenges. The council was committed to reduce expenditure through increased shared services and with government partners (ie One Public Estate), progressing the business transformation programme to work more effectively and review non-staff costs. Also reserves would be reviewed in detail to ensure sufficient to meet needs and timescales. Council was recommended to approve the MTFS to 2020 with full detail of proposals detailed in Appendix D of the report.

?

The Cabinet member was confident the Budget and MTFS would deliver because it was realistic and aware of both the Corporate Plan and Corporate Improvement Plan. This work would enable the council to reap the rewards of its increased income and reduced expenditure drivers.

?

There would be new revenue and capital investment. Such as a ?200,000 recurring revenue investment to increase capacity to support the Corporate Improvement Plan. Capital investment to 2019/20 included ?330,000 in council assets safeguarding Worden Hall and create opportunities for the Banqueting Suite to general income. Appendix E to the report identified capital investment of ?11.545M during the MTFS.

?

The 2017/18 Budget was balanced and the MTFS aimed to address and deliver options that would bridge the projected (?3.6M) budget gap by 2019/20. Frontline services would be safeguarded, 60% of efficiencies were aimed to be from income generation and the level of the general reserve would be no lower than ?4M by the end of the period.

?

A balance budget was central to achieving an efficient, exceptional and financially self-sufficient council. One that could maintain a clean, green and safe environment for strong and healthy communities and through investments also enhance prosperity where people wanted to live and work. This had been highlighted by last week?s Channel 4 programme identifying South Ribble as voted the best place to live in the country.

Councillor Mrs Snape proposed and recommended to the council the 2017/18 Budget and MTFS to 2020. This was seconded by the Leader of the Council (Councillor Mullineaux) who reserved the right to speak later.

In response to the Conservative Group?s proposal Councillor Foster (Leader of the Labour Group) then presented the Labour Group?s alternative. He began by stating that a lot had happened in the last year. Such as three council leaders, two chief executives, high staff sickness rates, horrendous staff survey, resigning councillors and, a vile social media campaign. In addition the failure of the council?s governance arrangements had led to challenge from the LGA and DCLG, the external auditor had given the council a qualified (rather than unqualified) annual governance statement, there was a Peer Review and been examination by the CfPS. It was felt this was another year of failure by the ruling group, at war with itself with no values or vision. It had brought the council to its knees, staff morale at an all-time low, two members of Cabinet resign and re-instate themselves and the LGA had to intervene instructing group members to support their Leader. In the last six months matters had got worse and the current budget proposals were possibly the most critical members had had to vote on. He felt that the Conservative Group?s proposal would lead to the council being placed in special measures whilst the Labour Group?s alternative would give a chance to flourish again.

?

The Labour Group?s alternative proposed progress whilst safeguarding services/staff and included no specific amount for business transformation (staff morale/health already low), better use of earmarked reserves, reduce the amount of spare cash, prioritise the Corporate Improvement Plan with increased capacity and more funds for development that the Conservative Group?s proposal. The ruling group had given away a piece of land in Leyland for ?1 and its investment in Momentum Business Park had failed as 5 of the 7 units were vacant. The Labour Group proposed initiatives to attract events in to the borough. It proposed to remove the ?3.50 per week council tax support scheme. There was a vision in the proposal for leisure whilst the Conservative Group?s proposal was silent. The council had a projected budget deficit in two years of ?3.5M and needed to protect statutory services. The collection of green waste was not statutory and it was proposed to introduce a charge. Also this council was losing a ?1M pa subsidy from the county council on recycling, why should those without a brown bin in the borough subsidise those who had one. This was not a tax as residents would have the option to opt in/out of the service.

?

In respect of parishing, it was felt the unparished areas were at a clear disadvantage to those that were. In particular the receipt of CIL monies. Penwortham Town Council (PTC) following the support for its local plan will now receive substantial sums. Longton Parish Council had included within its precept an amount for the retention of a local bus route (paid for directly by the people who benefit). PTC has also benefitted from the county council?s recent Community Assets Transfer of community library and centre. Unfortunately areas such as Bamber Bridge, Leyland or Lostock Hall do not benefit. This needed to be equalised and parish the whole borough and those parishes could be community engagement hubs and used the right way replace this council?s Neighbourhood Forums.

?

The Leader of the Labour Group commented that their proposals were simple, supported the vulnerable, created sustainability, financial self-sufficiency, comprehensive public engagement, and had a strong local economy and business growth. Whilst the Conservative administration had no single policy supporting local economy, health, wellbeing, community safety or parks/open spaces and assets. It also proposed to immediately cut PSCO funding and, proposed to cut ?1.7M expenditure over three years ? clueless, careless and callous.

?

He went on to state that the Labour Group was sickened by the continued inappropriate behaviour of certain Conservative members and associates and the abuse to officers and other councillors. Also it was appalled at their budget proposals whilst the Labour Group had worked very hard to develop its real alternative proposals rather than the current status quo.

?

Councillor Foster commended the Labour Group?s alternative 2017/18 Budget and MTFS to 2020 proposals to the council and thanks officers for their assistance in its production. This was seconded by Councillor M Tomlinson who reserved the right to speak later.

?

The Leader of the Liberal Democrat Group (Councillor Howarth) spoke to both proposals, firstly that by the Conservative Group. He was critical of the council?s leadership and that despite the growing projected budget deficit in coming years, it was again proposed to freeze council tax. The 7 out of years of not increasing council tax had eroded the council tax base and in 2017/18 the council would forego ?1,444,443 with a cumulative amount of ?6,041,728 since 2009. It had not taken account of inflationary pressures and had lost potential yearly income going forward. The proposed budget included stopping funding of PCSOs, how could that support the safety of the borough? Similarly how was a greener borough supported by the introduction of a tax on garden waste (increased landfill, fly tipping and garden bonfires). The charge equated to a 9.3% (Band H), 14.5% (Band D) and 21.5% (Band A) increase in council tax for one bin, higher if you had more bins. He referred to leaflets previously circulated by conservative councillors which stated that there would not be a charge for the collection of green waste which residents could now interpret as untrue. The Liberal Democrats Group would not support the Conservative Group?s Budget.

?

In respect of the alternative Labour Group?s Budget, it contain some admirable points (such parishing the borough, support for PCSOs and review of car parking). However, the Liberal Democrat Group would not support the alternative either. Unfortunately, similar to earlier comments regarding the Conservative Group?s proposal, previous Labour Group leaflets also stated they would maintain the council?s highly regarded waste service without any extra charges. This would disproportionally affect the poorest and vulnerable in the borough.

He concluded that three political parties present tonight went into the 2015 borough elections committed not to charge for green waste collection, at least one had retained its integrity.

?

There was then a general discussion by elected members from both sides of the chamber on their felt merits or not of the respective groups? presented budget proposals. This included such as the funding of PCSOs and where this should come from, replacement wheelie bin charge, collection of green waste (introduction immediate charge or defer at least 12 months) and the ending of the waste cost sharing agreement with LCC (from April 2018 South Ribble losing ?1M pa), leisure partnership, business transformation (including different ways of working/use of technology and reference to the recent workforce survey), Worden Park and promoting events in the borough, extension of parish councils across the whole borough, council tax support scheme (including the wider impact if removed), investment in the borough/community and the extension of shared services.

?

The Mayor stated that a vote would now be taken on the Labour Group?s alternative proposal as this was an amendment to the original (Conservative Group?s) proposal.

Those in Favour:
Councillors Ms Bell, Donoghue, Evans, Forrest, Foster, Higgins, K Jones, Mrs S Jones, Martin, Miss Mawson, Titherington, M Tomlinson, Watkinson, Watts, and Wooldridge

?

Those Against:
Councillors Bennett, Bird, Mrs Blow, Clark, Coulton, Mrs Mary Green, Michael Green, Ms Hamilton, Hancock, Hesketh, Howarth, Hughes, Marsh, Mrs Moon, Mrs Mort, Mullineaux, Nelson, Mrs Noblet, Rainsbury, Mrs M Smith, P Smith, Mrs Snape, Suthers, G Walton, Mrs K Walton, Wharton, Mrs Woollard and Yates

?

The amendment by the Labour Group was lost. The vote was then taken on the original proposal by the Conservative Group.

?

Those in Favour:
Councillors Bennett, Bird, Mrs Blow, Clark, Coulton, Mrs Mary Green, Michael Green, Ms Hamilton, Hesketh, Hughes, Marsh, Mrs Moon, Mrs Mort, Mullineaux, Nelson, Mrs Noblet, Rainsbury, Mrs M Smith, P Smith, Mrs Snape, Suthers, G Walton, Mrs K Walton, Wharton, Mrs Woollard and Yates

?

Those Against:
Councillors Ms Bell, Donoghue, Evans, Forrest, Foster, Hancock, Higgins, Howarth, K Jones, Mrs S Jones, Martin, Miss Mawson, Titherington, M Tomlinson, Watkinson, Watts, and Wooldridge

?

The original proposal by the Conservative Group was carried.

?

RESOLVED: that
Revenue Estimates
1. the Council's revised estimates for 2016/17, the original estimate for 2017/18 and indicative original estimates for 2018/19 through to 2019/20, summarised at Appendix A to this report be approved.

2. the Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) to 2019/20 at Appendix D and the proposed budget efficiencies set out within the document to further improve efficiency/increase income and reduce the forecast budget deficit be approved. Specifically the following:-

? Introducing Charges for collecting Garden Waste with effect from 1st April 2018.
? Introducing a Charging Policy for the replacement of wheeled bins with effect from 1st April 2017.
? Retracting the contribution made to the Police and Crime Commissioner for Police Community Support Officer in the sum of ?0.044m.

3. the assessment on the level of reserves for 2017/18 in Appendix F be endorsed.

4. Council be recommended that the adjustment to General and Earmarked Reserves, whilst recognising that this figure may need to be revised when the Government announces the final Local Government Finance Settlement figures for 2017/18.

5. subject to any amendments proposed in considering recommendations 1 to 4 above, it be recommended that a Borough Council Net Expenditure requirement for 2017/18 (including parish/town council precepts) for approval at the Council meeting on 1st March adequate to support the delivery of the MTFS.

6. the Chief Executive be authorised to deal with staffing issues arising from the report within the agreed budget and in accordance with the council?s human resources policies. This will be done in consultation with the Leader, and in his absence the Deputy Leader and the Cabinet member with responsibility for Finance, and as appropriate other relevant Cabinet Members.

Council Tax
7. subject to consideration of recommendations 1 to 6 above, it be recommended the Borough Council?s Band D equivalent Council Tax for 2017/18, for approval at the council meeting on 1st March 2017, remains at the same level as 2016/17 being ?208.38.

8. Council determines the reduction in Council Tax Support applicable to working age claimants with effect from 1st April 2017.
Capital Programme and Budget
9. investment in the Capital Programme as set out in Appendix E and its proposed funding be approved.

Robustness of the Budget and MTFS Sustainability.
10. Council is recommended to note the Statutory Finance Officer?s comments and advice under Section 25 of the Local Government Act 2003 as set out in this report in Appendix G and have regard to it when considering the budget proposals for 2017/18.

Further to min. no.89 above, the council the proposed level of Council Tax for 2017/18. Appended to the report was the formal Council Tax resolution. The report was proposed and seconded.

?

Those in favour:
Councillors Bennett, Bird, Mrs Blow, Clark, Coulton, Mrs Mary Green, Michael Green, Ms Hamilton, Hesketh, Hughes, Marsh, Mrs Moon, Mrs Mort, Mullineaux, Nelson, Mrs Noblet, Rainsbury, Mrs M Smith, P Smith, Mrs Snape, Suthers, G Walton, Mrs K Walton, Wharton, Mrs Woollard and Yates

?

Those against:
Councillors Ms Bell, Donoghue, Evans, Forrest, Foster, Hancock, Higgins, Howarth, K Jones, Mrs S Jones, Martin, Miss Mawson, Titherington, M Tomlinson, Watkinson, Watts, and Wooldridge

?

The proposal was carried.

?

RESOLVED:
that the formal Council Tax resolution be approved and appended to these minutes and in doing so, approve the revised budget for 2016/17 along with the Council?s budget for 2017/18.

Council considered a report on proposed changes to its conviction policy which would strengthen the council?s existing approach and policies regarding hackney carriage and private hire licensing. This item had been considered by the General Licensing Committee on 21 February 2017 and recommended its adoption. The report was proposed seconded.

RESOLVED (unanimously):
that the council formally adopts the revised Convictions Policy attached as Appendix 1 to the report (replacing the Statement of Policy and Guidelines previously adopted by Council on 20 July 2016 as Appendix 1 to the Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Vehicle Licensing Policy).

The council received a report which had been already discussed at the recent meeting of the Governance Committee. The committee had recommended council approve Option 3 detailed in the report. However, this decision had to be ratified at a meeting of the council.

?

RESOLVED (unanimously):
that the council approves Option 3 in the report thereby accepting the invitation from Public Sector Audit Appointments Ltd. to become an opted-in authority for the purposes of the appointment of its external auditor.

Following Councillor Wharton?s resignation as a member of the Standards Committee, the council was requested to approve Councillor Coulton?s appointment to that committee.

?

During consideration of this item, the Labour Group expressed serious concerns about the lack of proportionality of its membership of certain committees and the need for the committee structure to be examined. To the extent that unless there were changes, it was considering withdrawing from membership of every committee for the next municipal year.

?

RESOLVED (unanimously) that Councillor Coulton be appointed as a member of the Standards Committee for the remainder of 2016/17.