Decisions

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Hanson)

In accordance with Part 4, Section 7, Urgent Business Procedure Rules and S100 (B) of the Local Government Act 1972, Cabinet received a report from the Chief Officer (Regeneration & Planning) which sought approval to allocate funding from the Economic Growth Reserve towards a feasibility study.  The reason for the urgency was that commissioning of the feasibility works needed to commence on the 1^st July 2017.  The Chairman of Overview and Scrutiny Committee had been consulted and agreed to the item being treated as a matter of urgency in accordance with Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rule 17 (a) and therefore not subject to call-in.

The options, options analysis, including risk assessment were set out in a report which was exempt from publication by virtue of paragraph 3 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

Councillor Hanson proposed, seconded by Councillor Clifford:

“That the recommendations, as set out in the exempt report, be approved.”

Councillors then voted:-

Resolved unanimously:

(1)          That on behalf of the Council, Cabinet expresses its support for the project and the potential opportunities it presents.

(2)       That Cabinet approves a financial contribution towards the detailed feasibility work   to be undertaken for the project as set out in sections 2.5 and 2.6 of the exempt report, to be financed from the Economic Growth Reserve.

(3)       That it be noted that the Chairman of Overview and Scrutiny Committee has agreed to waive the call-in period regarding implementation of the decision.

Officers responsible for effecting the decision:

Chief Officer (Regeneration & Planning)

Chief Officer (Resources)

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Whitehead)

Cabinet received a report from the Chief Officer (Resources) which provided summary information regarding the provisional outturn for 2016/17, including Treasury Management.

The options, options analysis, including risk assessment and officer preferred option, were set out in the report as follows:

The City Council has a legal requirement to ensure that its expenditure is fully funded and to produce accounts in accordance with proper accounting practice.  In addition, the Prudential Indicators are a statutory requirement linked to the budgetary framework.  For these aspects, therefore, there are no alternative options for Cabinet to consider.  Members are being asked to endorse certain actions taken by the Chief Officer (Resources), and Cabinet should consider whether it has sufficient information to do so or whether it requires any further justification.

The report requests Cabinet to consider a number of revenue overspending, capital slippage and other budget adjustment matters.  The framework for considering these is set out in the report but basically Cabinet may:

-          Endorse any number of the items / requests, in full or part.

-          Refuse various requests and if commitments have already been incurred, require alternative funding options to be identified.  Cabinet should note, however, that this may impact on other areas of service delivery.

-          Request further information regarding them, if appropriate.

The Officer preferred options are as set out in the recommendations, on the assumption that Members continue to support their previously approved spending plans.

Councillor Whitehead proposed, seconded by Councillor Clifford:-

“That the recommendations, as set out in the report, be approved.”

Councillors then voted:-

Resolved unanimously:

(1)          That the provisional outturn for 2016/17 be endorsed, including the transfers to Provisions, Reserves and Balances actioned by the Chief Officer (Resources), and the position regarding overspendings.

(2)          That the requests for capital slippage and the adjustments to reflect accelerated capital spending on projects as set out at Appendix G to the report be endorsed, with the Capital Programme being updated accordingly.

(3)       That the Annual Treasury Management report and Prudential Indicators as set out at Appendix H to the report be noted and referred on to Council for information.

(4)       That the implications of business rate growth be noted, with them being fed into the next update of the Council’s Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS).

Officer responsible for effecting the decision:

Chief Officer (Resources)

Reasons for making the decision:

The Outturn and Statement of Accounts report on all the financial resources generated and/or used by the Council in providing services or undertaking other activities under the Policy Framework.

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Warriner)

Cabinet received a report from the Chief Officer (Health & Housing) which sought approval for varying the current Air Quality Management Area (City of Lancaster) (No.1) Order 2004 by replacing it with a new Air Quality Management Area (City of Lancaster) (No.2) Order 2017.

The options, options analysis, including risk assessment and officer preferred option, were set out in the report as follows:

The Council needs to vary the Air Quality Management Area order for the City of Lancaster and Option 1 is recommended.  This carries no disadvantages.  No advantages have been identified in making any wider changes to the existing Order.  Arrangements are in hand to monitor and review the impact of several key pollution-influencing actions (the Bay Gateway road opening, and pending passenger bus technology modifications) however these will take some time. 

The proposed variation to the Air Quality Management Area order for the City of Lancaster addresses an important administrative update about air pollution levels in parts of central Lancaster, serving the interests of residents living in areas close to busy roads and highest concentrations of air pollution from road traffic. 

Councillor Warriner proposed, seconded by Councillor Clifford:-

“That the recommendations, as set out in the report, be approved.”

Councillors then voted:-

Resolved unanimously:

(1)       That the current Air Quality Management Area (City of Lancaster) (No 1) Order 2004 be revoked.

(2)       That an Air Quality Management Area be re-designated as proposed in the draft Air Quality Management Area (City of Lancaster) (No 2) Order 2017, attached to the report.

Officer responsible for effecting the decision:

Chief Officer (Health & Housing)

Reasons for making the decision:

Air quality review and assessment forms an important part of the Council’s protection of the community’s health.  Air pollution poses particular threats to the elderly, young children and people with heart and breathing difficulties.  It is essential that the potential air quality problems highlighted to date by Air Quality Review and Assessment are resolved and this proposal serves that objective.