Agenda and minutes

Called in by Councillors Heath and Kerr (Overview and Scrutiny Committee), Councillors Whitelegg, Archer and Stamp

·         Call-in Procedure (Page 1)

·         Call-in Notice (Page 3)

·         Cabinet Minute Extract (Page 5)

Attached is an edited ‘public’ version of the report submitted to Cabinet. Also attached for information is the original ‘exempt’ report submitted to Cabinet.

Members should note that this report contains exempt information and it may be necessary to move the following resolution if the Committee discusses information covered by the exemption: -

That, in accordance with S100A (4) of the Local Government Act, 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the grounds that they could involve the possible disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 3 of Schedule 12A of that Act.

Members are reminded that whilst the following items have been marked as exempt, it is for the Committee itself to decide whether or not to consider each of these in private or in public.  In making the decision, Members should consider the relevant paragraph of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972, and should balance the interests of individuals or the Council itself in having access to information.  In considering their discretion Members should also be mindful of the advice of Council Officers.

·         Cabinet Report [Non-Exempt] (Page 9)

·         Cabinet Report [Exempt] (Page 15)

Members were advised that the Cabinet decision in relation to the Canal Corridor Development Agreement had been Called-in by the following 5 Members:

Councillors Emily Heath, David Kerr, John Whitelegg, Evelyn Archer and Catriona Stamp.

Members were informed that the Call-in had been made on the basis that the decision of Cabinet had not been made in accordance with all the principles set out in Article 13.02 (Decision Making) of the Constitution, in particular:

(b)               Due consultation and the taking of professional advice from Officers.

(c)               A presumption in favour of openness.

(f)           Options that were considered and the reasons for arriving at the 

            decision will be explained.   

The Chairman outlined the procedure to be followed and confirmed that in the event of the meeting going into closed session, this would be moved after the public comments.

The Chairman invited Councillor Whitelegg to address the meeting on behalf of the Call-in signatories.

Councillor Whitelegg confirmed that the decision had been called in for three reasons.   With regard to (b) due consultation and the taking of professional advice from Officers, it was suggested that the decision taken was not based on the result of a consultation exercise as Cabinet had not been provided with this information and there was a deficit in the scope of the information and advice provided by Officers. 

With regard to (c) a presumption in favour of openness, it was suggested that important matters of debate were exempt which should not have been and that there was little attempt to widen the discussion to include Morecambe, Heysham or Carnforth.

It was suggested that in relation to (f) options that were considered and the reasons for arriving at the decision will be explained, the options considered were inadequate and the decision was therefore based on restricted options.

Councillor Whitelegg read out the following statement:

‘The decision was made in the absence of any information available to cabinet members on the results of the household consultation.  The canal corridor brief explicitly states that the views of members of the public will be taken into account and they were not.  Further the financial implications did not take into account the possibility that losses will be greater than presented as a result of the abstraction of car parking revenues across the city by the 800 new spaces on this development (500 more than presently available).  This option should have been included with an appropriate risk assessment in the information presented to Cabinet.

The decision was, moreover, based on an inadequate consideration of the potential damage to Morecambe’s regeneration ambitions, to the financial viability of Lancaster market and its implications for the MTFS and the impact of extra traffic on traffic congestion on the gyratory system.’

Councillor Barker outlined that the principal decision before Cabinet had been with regard to a development agreement and the terms on which land could be transferred to Centros Miller together with financial agreements.  It was suggested that this was an important decision in terms of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.