Meeting documents

An apology for absence had been received from Councillor P Smith (Regeneration & Leisure).

There were no declarations of interest.

That the minutes of the meeting held on 26 October 2016 be approved as a correct record.

The Leader (Councillor Mullineaux) stated that Cabinet proposed to implement actions for the recommendations from the Scrutiny Committee?s Review of Licensing. At this point he introduced Joanne Platt (Interim Corporate Improvement Manager) who would provide project management support for the proposed detailed action plan.

This was seconded by Councillor Clark (Corporate Support & Assets) who commented that all but a couple of the recommendation were actioned. Those that were not were No.6, which was not considered to require cabinet approval and No.7, which was not a matter for Cabinet and was already being progressed.

Councillor Mullineaux added that he felt that six months for the implementation of recommendation No.16, was too long and suggested this be amended to as soon as possible. This was seconded. He also made an offer to the families that felt aggrieved to meet with him and the Chief Executive to listen to their concerns, go through the action plan and next steps.

The Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee (Councillor Titherington) (in the audience) welcomed the response of the Cabinet. Also that the Local Government Association (LGA) and the Centre for Public Scrutiny (CfPS) were providing resources to assist the council. Unfortunately during the process he and the task group had been vilified along with the report receiving a lot of criticism. Cllr Titherington further stated that for Scrutiny to carry out its role properly it must be able to present reports without intimidation and pressure. The committee and task group had kept to the terms of reference given by council and felt that it had carried out a good and thorough review.

In respect of training and development, Councillor Martin (in the audience) commented that if training (such as Safeguarding) was mandatory for officers it should also be for members.

Councillor Clark commented that further to his earlier comment in respect of recommendation No.6, he would discuss an appropriate way to take this forward with the Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee.

It was hoped that all could get some closure and move forward.

RESOLVED (unanimously): that
1. the proposed actions in the report (including the amendment to recommendation 16) be the basis of Cabinet?s response to the Scrutiny Committee and be part of the Council?s Annual Governance Statement be endorsed;
2. the development of a more detailed action plan incorporating key milestones and targets for monitoring both by the Employment Panel (who are responsible for overseeing the performance of the Interim Chief Executive) and by Scrutiny Committee, Governance Committee and Cabinet as appropriate be endorsed;
3. additional match funding of up to ?70,000 to enable the Interim Chief Executive to secure additional capacity support on governance and legal workloads be agreed;
4. a Residents Survey to be carried out as soon as practicable by the LGA, with a further survey six months on to enable progress to be measured be agreed; and
5. the Governance Committee?s strong recommendation that all members diligently adopt and follow all of the principles outlined in the Governance Framework and ensure they are fully implemented moving forward be endorsed.

The Leader (Councillor Mullineaux) recommended Cabinet agree the responses to the Scrutiny Committee?s Review of Flooding as outlined in the report.

This was proposed by Councillor Clark (Corporate Support & Assets) whose area of responsibility included emergency planning. He thanked the Scrutiny Committee for its hard work which had produced 20 recommendations (a lot relating to non-statutory functions). It was proposed to accept and implement 16 but not accept the remaining 4 (recommendations Nos.2, 7, 10 and 11) as outlined in the report. The council?s policies and plans had been reviewed and were felt to be robust with testing/training events held each year. In future it might be appropriate after testing to refer to scrutiny and see if there were any concerns. This was seconded.

The Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee (Councillor Titherington) (in the audience) welcomed the responses to the review?s recommendations. A number of aspects conspired last year and hoped it was unique with statutory bodies such as Lancashire County Council being stretch across the county. Tribute had been paid to communities working together assisted by this council?s officers. He felt it appropriate to examine co-ordination of bodies/services should something similar re-occur. Whilst there were statutory bodies such as LCC and the Environment Agency, he felt all had a responsibility to contribute to reduce flooding.

It was acknowledged that sandbags had very limited use against flooding and whilst the council had provided some in the past to help, residents needed to take responsibility for their properties.

Residents would be advised/educated/sign-posted through multi-media where to get the appropriate expertise/advice to protect their own property rather than rely on the council. There would be an appropriate article in the next issue of Forward.
It was re-emphasised that gully cleaning/maintenance was the responsibility of LCC, this council might provide the service only if LCC paid for it.

RESOLVED (unanimously):
that the action plan attached to the report be the basis of Cabinet?s response to the Scrutiny Committee.