There were none.

Minutes of the last meeting held on Wednesday, 16 November 2020 attached to be signed as a correct record.

Decision made (unanimously):-

That the minutes of the meeting held on 11 November 2020 be agreed as a correct record.

Members are requested to indicate at this stage in the proceedings any items on the agenda in which they intend to declare an interest. Members are reminded that if the interest is a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest (as defined in the Members’ Code of Conduct) they must leave the room for the whole of that item. If the interest is not a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest, but is such that a member of the public could reasonably regard it as being so significant that it is likely that it would prejudice their judgment of the public interest (as explained in the Code of Conduct) then they may make representations, but then must leave the meeting for the remainder of the item.

There were none.

The Cabinet Forward Plan for the period 1 December 2020 – 30 November 2020 attached for information.

The Leader of the Council presented the Cabinet Forward Plan for the period 1 December 2020 - 30 November 2021 for information.

A slight error in the Plan was noted in that the decision dates had been omitted from the items ‘Fees and Charges 2021-2022’ and ‘Council Housing Delivery Programme’. The decision date for both should be 20 January 2021.

Decision made (unanimously):-

That, subject to the amendments above, the Cabinet Forward Plan for the period 1 December 2020 - 30 November 2020 be noted.

Report of the Shared Services Lead – Democratic, Scrutiny and Electoral Services enclosed.

The Leader of the Council, Councillor Paul Foster, presented a report

of the Shared Services Lead – Democratic, Scrutiny and Electoral Services detailing urgent decisions taken in accordance with the Council’s Constitution due to the COVID19 pandemic.

Decision made (unanimously):

That the report be noted.

Report of the Deputy Chief Executive enclosed.

Decision made (unanimously):-

1.     That, subject to a minor amendment on page 38, paragraph 3 of the report that the wording be revised to “…and the new shared service between Chorley and South Ribble”, the new Communications Strategy be approved;

2.     That an update be brought back to Cabinet in six months regarding the Communications Strategy Action Plan; and

3.     That the updated media protocol be approved.

The Leader of the Council, Councillor Paul Foster, presented a report of the Deputy Chief Executive regarding a refresh of the Communications Strategy.

Councillor Mrs Smith referred to page 38, paragraph 3 of the report and proposed that the wording be amended slightly to “…and the new shared service between Chorley and South Ribble”. The Cabinet accepted this amendment.

Decision made (unanimously):-

1.     That, subject to a minor amendment on page 38, paragraph 3 of the report that the wording be revised to “…and the new shared service between Chorley and South Ribble”, the new Communications Strategy be approved;

2.     That an update be brought back to Cabinet in six months regarding the Communications Strategy Action Plan; and

3.     That the updated media protocol be approved.

Reasons for decision

A refresh of the Communications Strategy was one of the actions outlined in the annual governance statement. At the same time the Council has also taken the opportunity to update the media protocol to provide more clarity for officers.

Alternative options considered and rejected

The detail of the Strategy was formed as part of a review of the Communications Team over the summer. There were various approaches to how we would develop our communications included in the Strategy.

The option to continue with the existing Strategy was rejected as it was out-of-date and a refresh of the Strategy was a requirement of the annual governance statement action plan.

Report of the Director of Planning and Property enclosed.

Decision made (unanimously):-

1.     That the expenditure of £70,000 capital from section 106 money, specifically from the monies allocated for Housing, be approved;

2.     That the partnership working with Progress Housing Association to deliver this proposal, be approved.

The Cabinet Member for Health, Wellbeing and Leisure, Councillor Mick Titherington, presented a report of the Director of Planning and Property which gave details of a bid submitted to the Ministry of Housing Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) alongside Homes England, and in relation to the funding to continue the provision of accommodation for rough sleepers or those at risk of rough sleeping.

Decision made (unanimously):-

1.     That the expenditure of £70,000 capital from section 106 money, specifically from the monies allocated for Housing, be approved;

2.     That the partnership working with Progress Housing Association to deliver this proposal, be approved.

Reasons for decision

This decision will enable the Council to release £70,000 match funding to support the Next Steps Accommodation bid.

The Council will now be able to work in partnership with Progress Housing Group to deliver 2 specific units of accommodation to house individuals who are at risk of rough sleeping, and to provide the support required to sustain that accommodation.

Alternative options considered and rejected

It was initially considered that the Council should acquire the properties however this needed investment partner status which timescales did not permit.

The proposals were in line with the range of options that could be considered within the bid and that were achievable within the timescale.

Report of the Director of Planning and Property enclosed.

Decision made (unanimously):-

1.     That Cabinet approves the Infrastructure Funding Statement for display on the Council website for the next year.

2.     That Cabinet requests the Director of Planning and Property to prepare a policy for spending Developer Contributions.

The Cabinet Member for Planning, Regeneration and City Deal presented a report of the Director of Planning and Property requesting approval of the infrastructure funding statement and its publication onto the Council website. The report indicated that this was to replace the current regulation 123 list that has been in place since the adoption of Community infrastructure Levy (CIL) in July 2013.

Decision made (unanimously):-

1.     That Cabinet approves the Infrastructure Funding Statement for display on the Council website for the next year.

2.     That Cabinet requests the Director of Planning and Property to prepare a policy for spending Developer Contributions.

Reasons for decision

The infrastructure funding statement was a requirement of the CIL Regulations 2010 (as amended) Regulation 121A. It is a requirement to publish an infrastructure funding statement annually by 31st December.

Alternative options considered and rejected

None, for the reasons given above.

Report of the Director of Planning and Property enclosed.

Decision made (unanimously):-

That, subject to clearance from the street naming and numbering process, Pearson House be renamed Tom Hanson House.

The Leader of the Council, Councillor Paul Foster presented a report of the Director of Planning and Property to consider the renaming of Pearson House, Bamber Bridge.

A query was raised by Councillor Clark in relation to the Council’s policy as regards the naming of streets e.g. in new housing developments. It was agreed that the Chief Executive would clarify the current position to Councillor Clark following the meeting.

Decision made (unanimously):-

That, subject to clearance from the street naming and numbering process, Pearson House be renamed Tom Hanson House.

Reasons for decision

The redevelopment of Pearson House is currently ongoing and due to complete in 2021 with handover to Community Gateway on a lease arrangement. Local ward members have requested a change in the name of the property to honour former Borough Councillor Tom Hanson.     

Alternative options considered and rejected

None, for the reasons given above.

Report of the Director of Planning and Property to follow.

The Cabinet Member (Finance, Property and Assets), presented a report of the Director of Planning and Property providing members with a further update on the Worden Hall Project. The report also requested approval for the next stage of the project which proposes to authorise the Cabinet Member (Finance, Property and Assets) in consultation with the Chief Executive to commence a procurement exercise to identify a contractor and professional services tom implement the Worden Hall Project.

A member of the public submitted two questions to Councillor Tomlinson in relation to the report, which were as follows:

1.     Paragraph 6 of the Worden Project states that you and the CEO will decide which contractor will be authorized to undertake the Worden Hall Project works (Subject to Cabinet approval).

The contract will be awarded to the highest scoring contractor in the terms of social value, quality of submission, timeframe for implementation and price. 

I can understand how you can quantify awarding a contract using points 2,3 & 4 but point 1, social values are a personal, family, group, geographical and more divisive a political decision. 

So Councillor do you agree with me that the Social Value criteria should be removed from the bidding process, if not why?

2.     If you proceed with the proposed bidding process what will the percentage weightings be allocated to each of the four proposals.

The response by Councillor Tomlinson was as follows:

In response to the first question, there seems to have been a misunderstanding of the concept of “social value” because none of the criteria ascribed to the term in the question are accurate. Social Value has previously been explained at Scrutiny and Cabinet meetings by Councillor Bylinski Gelder, in which she clarified that the Social Value Act 2012 placed an obligation on local councils to look holistically at procurement. South Ribble Borough Council is already behind in this regard, and indeed other councils are winning awards for the way social value informs their procurement. The project provides an excellent opportunity, especially in the current climate to upskill, employ and improve financial outcomes for some of the residents in South Ribble. According to Councillor Bylinski Gelder, it is common sense to apply social value in a project like Worden Hall and therefore my answer to the question posed is - no.

In response to the second question, we are not yet at a stage to provide those figures, however to use previous examples, in the case of Tom Hanson House social value was 6% and for Hurst Grange Coach House it was 20%. I would expect the weighting to be in the lower range of those quotes. The weightings will be fully disclosed in the future report to Cabinet.

Decision made (unanimously):-

1.     That Cabinet welcomes the progress of the Worden Hall project and notes the formal submission of the project to Planning this week;

2.     That Cabinet authorises the Portfolio Holder for Finance, Property and Assets in consultation with the Chief Executive to commence a procurement exercise  ...  view the full minutes text for item 174.