Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Jon Barry, Rob Devey, Sheila Denwood, Helen Helme, Rebecca Novell, Susan Sykes, Oscar Thynne and Paul Woodruff.

To receive as a correct record the Minutes of the Meeting of the City Council held on 1^st March 2017 (previously circulated). 

The minutes of the meeting held on 1 March 2017 were signed by the Mayor as a correct record.

To receive declarations by Members of interests in respect of items on this Agenda. 

Members are reminded that, in accordance with the Localism Act 2011, they are required to declare any disclosable pecuniary interests which have not already been declared in the Council’s Register of Interests. (It is a criminal offence not to declare a disclosable pecuniary interest either in the Register or at the meeting). 

Whilst not a legal requirement, in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 9 and in the interests of clarity and transparency, Members should declare any disclosable pecuniary interests which they have already declared in the Register, at this point in the meeting. 

In accordance with Part B Section 2 of the Code Of Conduct, Members are required to declare the existence and nature of any other interests as defined in paragraphs 8(1) or 9(2) of the Code of Conduct. 

There were no declarations of interest made at this stage.

The Mayor reported the sad death of Honorary Alderman Robert Carr.

Robert was a longstanding rural Councillor who served as Mayor in 1988/89. He stood down from the Council on 1995 and was survived by his wife Betty.

Members stood in a minute’s silence in his memory.

The Mayor announced two fundraising events in April. On 21 April there would be a quiz night at Father’s House, tickets priced at £5, which included food. On 22 April there would be a charity bag pack at Asda.

The Mayor thanked all the Councillors and staff who had donated Easter Eggs to be given to local children in need.

To receive questions in accordance with the provisions of Council Procedure Rules 11.1 and 11.3 which require members of the public to give at least 3 days’ notice in writing of questions to a Member of Cabinet or Committee Chairman. 

The Mayor advised that a question had been received from a member of the public, Mr George Smith, in accordance with the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 11. However, Mr Smith would also be making an address to Council and would ask his question at the conclusion of his address. (Minute number 117 refers.)

To receive two petitions, one from the residents of Ellel and Bailrigg, the other from the residents of Burrow, and an address to Council as set out below:

Petition from the residents of Ellel and  Bailrigg:-

As residents of the local area (Bailrigg, Burrow and Ellel) we wish to raise our concerns about the scale, extent, impact and sustainability of the Bailrigg Garden Village as set out in the draft Lancaster District Local Plan, and the long term disruption it will cause.

Whilst not opposed to development and change in moderation, we believe the Council has not sufficiently considered any alternatives for such development in the district, and in particular the opportunities opened up by the expensively constructed Bay Gateway.

The time scale for consultation seems very limited and leaves little time for full consideration. The proposal doesn’t seem to provide any impact assessments of the scale of the development.

We believe this is not a garden village but an urban extension to the City of Lancaster.

(299 signatories)

Petition from the residents of Burrow:-

As concerned residents of the local area (Bailrigg, Burrow and Ellel) we wish to raise our concerns about the scale, extent, impact, sustainability and long term disruption of the Bailrigg Garden Village proposal in the draft Lancaster District Local Plan.

Whilst not opposed to development and change in moderation, we believe the Council has not proposed any alternatives for such development in the district, and the proposal fails to utilise the recently opened Bay Gateway infrastructure to its fullest extent. Following consultation with Green Party Councillor, Tim Hamilton-Cox, we challenge the baseline figures used in Council reports to measure demand and therefore the scale of the development proposed.

The time scale for consultation seems very limited and fails to follow due process. The proposal doesn’t seem to provide an impact assessments of the scale of the development.

We believe this is not a garden village but an urban extension to the City of Lancaster.

(67 signatories)

A report is attached to assist Members in their consideration of the petitions.

Mr Mark Salisbury spoke in support of two petitions which had been submitted to the Planning Department in response to the Local Plan consultation. Details of both petitions and the number of signatories were set out in the agenda.

One of the petitions contained more than 200 signatures and related to no more than two wards. In accordance with the Petition Scheme in the Council’s Constitution, a report had been prepared, which would normally assist Councillors to debate the matter. However, the Mayor noted that, since this was a Local Plan matter, it would not be appropriate to allow debate by the full Council, as this might prejudice preparation of the Local Plan.

The Chief Officer (Regeneration and Planning) responded to a question from a Councillor about the report.

Councillor Hanson then responded on behalf of the Council as the relevant Cabinet Member and thanked Mr Salisbury for attending Council.  The following proposition was made by Councillor Hanson and seconded by Councillor Armstrong.

“That, although the larger of the petitions contains sufficient signatures to trigger a Council debate in accordance with the Petition Scheme, the Council, in order to avoid prejudicing the preparation of the Local Plan for Lancaster District, defers consideration of the concern raised until a proposed publication version of the Local Plan is brought to council for debate in due course.”

Councillor Hamilton-Cox proposed an amendment:

“That the Council debate the matter to highlight certain issues.”

Councillor Hamilton-Cox went on to detail those issues. Council noted, however, that this course of action sought to negate, rather than change, the proposition and was not a valid amendment.

The Mayor called for a vote at this point, which was clearly carried, with 33 members voting for the proposition, six against and nine abstentions.

Resolved:

(1)        That, although the larger of the petitions contains sufficient signatures to trigger a Council debate in accordance with the Petition Scheme, the Council, in order to avoid prejudicing the preparation of the Local Plan for Lancaster District, defers consideration of the concern raised until a proposed publication version of the Local Plan is brought to council for debate in due course.

To receive an address and a question from Mr George Smith in accordance with Council’s Constitution. The address and question are set out in the agenda papers.

Mr George Smith spoke to Council about fly-tipping. A copy of his speech had been circulated with the agenda.

After making his speech, Mr Smith asked Councillor Brendan Hughes, the Cabinet Member for Community Safety and Clean and Green:

“Can the City Council tell me how many mobile CCTV cameras, which are capable of providing satisfactory evidence to prosecute offenders, does the Council have use of?”

Mr Smith also asked his supplementary question, to allow Councillor Hughes to respond to both:

“How many fly-tip offenders has Lancaster City Council successfully prosecuted in the last ten years?”

Councillor Hughes thanked Mr Smith for his speech and questions and replied that the Council did not have mobile CCTV cameras for the purpose described, however that might be something to consider for the future. 

With regard to prosecutions, Councillor Hughes explained that the Council only kept files for six years and between 2012-16 there had been three prosecutions there had been three prosecutions, one in January and two very recently, only two days before the Council meeting. However, he felt that this fact did not tell the full story. During 2012-16 the Council’s two person waste enforcement team attended 3,524 reported incidents of environmental crime, issued 2,302 warning letters, 898 statutory notices, 134 Fixed Penalty Notices and successfully obtained 13 prosecutions for littering. The Council also dealt with 575 reports of abandoned vehicles.

There were also a number of points that Councillor Hughes felt would be helpful to explain:

·         It was the landowner’s responsibility to deal with fly-tipping. Councils were only responsible for dealing with fly-tipping on public land.

·         Nether Kellet’s 12-fly tips per year didn’t state whether they happened on public or private land. At maximum they accounted for 0.43% of fly-tips in the District. Councillor Hughes was aware of one lane that was sometimes subject to fly-tipping but that was not public land. A potential solution the Council put to the Parish Council several months ago was to install a gate, which the farmer could lock and unlock. The Council had not received a response to this suggestion from the Parish Council yet, although it remained committed to working with Parish Councillors in any way to alleviate the problem of fly-tipping.

·         Following the Overview and Scrutiny report in 2007, the Council developed a strategy to improve the cleanliness of the District, recognising that fly-tipping and littering were symptoms and that tackling the causes would be most effective. This focussed on three strands: service delivery; education and enforcement. This strategy was now embedded into the Council’s work practices.

·         The Council took the cleanliness of the District very seriously and spent over 50%  of its budget on services that directly contributed to the management and maintenance of the public realm

Councillor Hughes went on to add that he believed the Council was proactive on fly-tipping, but clearly people wanted more. He was happy to do something further but needed support from communities. He asked that a list of the top ten fly-tipping hotspots  ...  view the full minutes text for item 117.

Referral from Council Business Committee.

Councillor Hall, Chairman of Council Business Committee, presented a report deferred from the 1 March Council meeting regarding Member Development – Mandatory Training.

Councillor Hall, seconded by Councillor Reynolds, proposed the recommendations of the Committee, as set out in the report.

Councillor Goodrich proposed a friendly amendment, which, after some clarification, was accepted by Councillors Hall and Reynolds. The amendment was to make Safeguarding/Child Sexual Exploitation training available for all Councillors, as well as mandatory for Members and substitutes on the Licensing Regulatory Committee.

In response to a question from a Councillor, officers clarified that finance training was already available for any existing Councillors on request.

The Mayor called for a vote and the proposition was clearly carried.

Resolved:

(1)            That Safeguarding/Child Sexual Exploitation training be made available for all Members and that Council makes it mandatory for:

(a)            All members and named substitutes of the Licensing Regulatory Committee to have undertaken Safeguarding/Child Sexual Exploitation training before sitting on the Committee;

(b)            All newly elected Members to undertake finance training.

To receive the Minutes of the Meeting of Cabinet held on 14^th February 2017.

Council considered the Cabinet minutes of the meeting held on 14 February 2017, deferred from the Council meeting on 1 March 2017. Councillor Clifford responded to questions.

Resolved:

That the minutes be noted.

The Leader presented her report updating Members on various issues since her last report to Council. She then responded to a number of questions from Councillors.

Councillor Hamilton-Cox asked if Members could have access to the reports circulated at the Lancashire Combined Authority meeting on 21 March regarding the five themes. Councillor Blamire said she would look into this.

Resolved:

That the report be noted. 

To receive the Annual Report of the Mayor.

In accordance with Article 5.02(g) of the Constitution, the Mayor presented his Annual Report for 2016/17.  There were no questions.

Resolved:

That the report be received.

To receive the Annual Report of Cabinet containing the business progress reports of the Leader and each Cabinet Member in accordance with Article 7.06(j).

Whilst the Annual Report will be published as a separate document in due course, the reports of individual Cabinet Members are included in this agenda and will be presented at the meeting.

In accordance with Article 7.06(k), the Leader and each Member of Cabinet had produced a written progress report for 2016/17. 

The Leader presented her annual report and answered a number of questions.

Councillors Clifford, Hanson, Hughes, Leytham, Leyshon, Pattison and Whitehead then presented their annual reports, responding to questions from Members, where raised.

During questions to Councillor Clifford about the Energy Strategy, he agreed to provide emissions data, in relation to the revised targets, to Councillor Hamilton-Cox.

An error in Councillor Hanson’s annual report was picked up. Council noted that Councillor Hanson was appointed to the Museums Cabinet Liaison Group as a member of the County Council, not the City Council.

Councillor Hamilton-Cox asked Councillor Hughes if minutes of the Waste Partnership could be made available to Members. Councillor Hughes said he would look into this.

Councillor Hughes agreed to investigate and report back on the feasibility of RingGo being available on a monthly permit basis and the introduction of a pay as you go ‘white bag’ scheme for garden waste.

In response to a question from Councillor Parkinson about the need to resurface Bull Back car park, Councillor Hughes said he would visit to look at it.

Councillor Leytham agreed to send details to Councillor Hamilton-Cox of the funding source and remit of the Anti-Social Behaviour Officer.

Resolved:

That the reports of Cabinet Members Councillors Blamire, Clifford, Hanson, Hughes, Leyshon, Leytham, Pattison and Whitehead be received.

To receive the Annual Report of Overview and Scrutiny.

In accordance with Article 6.03(c) the Overview and Scrutiny Annual Report for 2016/17 had been published and was presented to Council by the Chairman, Councillor Ashworth.

Resolved:

That the Overview & Scrutiny Annual Report be received.

To receive the Annual Report of the Audit Committee.

In accordance with Section 8.13 of Part 3 of the Council’s Constitution, the Chairman, Councillor Abbott Bryning, presented the 2016/17 Annual Report of the Audit Committee.

Resolved:

That the report be received.  

To receive Annual Reports submitted by the Council’s Champions.

In accordance with Part 6, Section 5 of the Constitution, annual reports were presented to Council by the Member Champions: Councillor Scott (Veterans’ Champion); Councillors Guilding and Cozler (Champions for the Disabled) and Councillor Brown (Champion for Children and Young People). The Champions responded to questions from Members, where raised.

Resolved:

That the reports be received.

To consider the following motion submitted by Councillors Terrie Metcalfe, Oscar Thynne and Nathan Burns.

“We are well aware that anti-Semitism continues to be a problem in this country. It is therefore right that, as a Council, we are able to demonstrate the seriousness with which we take it, as for all forms of hate crime. Anti-Semitism must be understood for what it is – an attack on the identity of people who live, contribute and are valued in our society. In light of this, Members agree to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance working definition of anti-Semitism (below), for application by the City Council.”

 “Anti-Semitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

(Background papers for the motion are attached, as is an officer briefing note.)

The following motion, of which notice had been given to the Chief Executive in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 15, was moved by Councillor Metcalfe and seconded by Councillor Burns:-

“We are well aware that anti-Semitism continues to be a problem in this country. It is therefore right that, as a Council, we are able to demonstrate the seriousness with which we take it, as for all forms of hate crime. Anti-Semitism must be understood for what it is – an attack on the identity of people who live, contribute and are valued in our society. In light of this, Members agree to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance working definition of anti-Semitism (below), for application by the City Council.”

 “Anti-Semitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

Background papers for the motion were attached, as was an officer briefing note.

There was a short debate and the motion was carried unanimously when put to the vote.

Resolved unanimously:-

We are well aware that anti-Semitism continues to be a problem in this country. It is therefore right that, as a Council, we are able to demonstrate the seriousness with which we take it, as for all forms of hate crime. Anti-Semitism must be understood for what it is – an attack on the identity of people who live, contribute and are valued in our society. In light of this, Members agree to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance working definition of anti-Semitism (below), for application by the City Council.

 “Anti-Semitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

To consider any changes to committee membership or chairmanship.

The Mayor drew Members’ attention to a list of changes submitted by the Green group, which were formally proposed by Councillor Hamilton-Cox, seconded by Councillor Brookes.

Councillor Armstrong, seconded by Councillor Brown, informed Council that the Labour Group wished to replace Councillor Sherlock with Councillor Clift on the Planning and Highways Regulatory Committee.

A vote was taken on all the proposals, which were clearly carried.

Resolved:

That the following changes to Committee Membership be approved:

(1)        Overview and Scrutiny Committee

Councillor Hamilton-Cox to replace Councillor Wilkinson as substitute.

(2)        Personnel Committee

Councillor Novell to be the second named substitute for the Green group.

(3)        Council Business Committee

Councillor Wilkinson to replace Councillor Hamilton-Cox as substitute.

(4)        Appraisal Panel

Councillor Novell to replace Councillor Hamilton-Cox.

(5)        Planning and Highways Regulatory Committee

Councillor Clift to replace Councillor Sherlock.

To receive questions in accordance with the provisions of Council Procedure Rules 12.2 and 12.4 which require a Member to give at least 3 working days’ notice, in writing, of the question to the Chief Executive. 

The Mayor advised that three questions had been received by the Chief Executive in accordance with Council Procedure Rules as follows:

(1)      Councillor Mace to Councillor Hanson regarding vacant buildings in the Lancaster Conservation Area.

(2)      Councillor Mace to Councillor Hanson regarding Enterprise Zone Status.

(3)      Councillor Peter Williamson to Councillor Clifford regarding Hornby Community Swimming Pool.

Details of the questions and answers together with any supplementary questions and responses are appended to the minutes.

To receive the Minutes of Meeting of Cabinet held 21^st March 2017. 

Council considered the Cabinet minutes of the meeting held on 21 March 2017. There were no questions.

Resolved:

That the minutes be noted.