Agenda and minutes

To receive as a correct record the minutes of Cabinet held on Tuesday, 22^nd April, 2008 and Special Cabinet held on Thursday, 1^st May, 2008 (previously circulated). 

The Minutes of the meetings held on 22^nd April and 1^st May, 2008 were approved as correct records. 

To consider any such items authorised by the Leader and to consider where in the agenda the item(s) are to be considered. 

The Chairman advised that there was 1 item of Urgent Business regarding Lancashire Local Area Agreement Lead Partners for Targets (Minute 3 refers).  The Chairman also confirmed that the item on Participatory Budgeting would be considered after the item of Urgent Business to enable the officer presentation to be taken at this point.

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Roger Mace)

 

In accordance with Section 100B (4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the Chairman agreed to consider the report as urgent business as there was a need for a decision prior to the next meeting of Cabinet.

 

The Corporate Director (Finance and Performance) submitted a report to seek Cabinet’s agreement to a process to endorse the proposed nominated lead partners for delivering the Lancashire Local Area Agreement targets and for further identifying those targets that Lancaster City Council will contribute to.

 

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

 

The Council has a legal duty to co-operate in determining the LAA targets.  As a consequence the options for the Council are restricted to:

Option 1

 

In light of the deadline for responding, to delegate the agreement of LAA lead partners for each target to the Chief Executive in consultation with the Leader of the Council, or…

 

Option 2

 

To identify an alternative process for agreeing the lead partners for the LAA individual targets.

 

In respect of identifying those LAA targets that the City Council will contribute to, the options are:

 

Option 1

 

In light of the deadline for responding, to delegate the identification of LAA targets which the City Council will contribute to, to the Chief Executive in consultation with the Leader of the Council, subject to resources being in place.

 

Option 2

 

To identify an alternative process for agreeing the targets that the City Council will contribute to delivering.

 

It can be seen from the Appendix, submitted to the report, that as yet, not all target measures have been quantified or confirmed.  This means that the risks associated with the above options cannot readily be ascertained, e.g. where a target measure has not been quantified, there is no way of knowing as yet whether the final target will be deliverable, or appropriate, or affordable from the Council’s perspective.  These uncertainties, and any new information arising, will be taken into account under the proposed delegated arrangements.  In particular, the estimated budgetary implications will need assessing, in identifying those targets that the City Council will contribute to.

 

Furthermore, Officers are currently reviewing the Council’s arrangements for managing key partnerships (and its involvement in them).  The outcome of this will have a positive bearing on how the Council manages and monitors performance of the relevant LAA targets and associated risks in future, from its own perspective.

 

The Officer preferred Option in both cases, was option one.  This will ensure that the Council will comply with its duty to co-operate in determining the LAA and also meet the designated deadlines for supplying the information requested.

 

It was moved by Councillor Eileen Blamire and seconded by Councillor David Kerr:-

 

“That Cabinet authorise the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Leader of the Council, to agree a list of lead partners for delivering the individual Lancashire Local Area Agreement targets, and further to that,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

Report of the Chief Executive.  

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor David Kerr)

 

The Chief Executive submitted a report to inform members of the recent Participatory Budgeting exercise carried out in Poulton and to make recommendations for the development of Participatory Budgeting based on the project and its evaluation.  The report was accompanied by a short presentation.

 

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

 

1       To identify appropriate un-committed grant funds available from relevant public bodies and plan a series of neighbourhood based Participatory Budgeting exercises.

 

The significant risk is in not having adequate planning and preparation for such exercises.  Our experience of the Poulton pilot is that this method of determining grant spending is labour intensive and requires careful and effective planning as well as relatively sophisticated event management on the day itself.

 

2       The ‘do nothing’ option whereby grants continue to be determined using the current system(s). 

 

The risk is that Lancaster City Council, and its partners, misses a significant opportunity to engage with neighbourhoods and to develop its community cohesion agenda. 

 

The Officer preferred option was option 1 as this provided an opportunity for more direct engagement with the District’s communities and a transparent method for the distribution of grant aid.

 

It was moved by Councillor Roger Mace and seconded by Councillor Eileen Blamire:-

 

“That a further report identifying specific opportunities to proceed with the development of Participatory Budgeting be brought back to a later Cabinet meeting.”

 

Members then voted as follows.

 

Resolved Unanimously:

 

That a further report identifying specific opportunities to proceed with the development of Participatory Budgeting be brought back to a later Cabinet meeting. 

 

Officer responsible for effecting the decision:

 

Corporate Director (Community Services) 

 

Reason for making the decision:

 

The decision will provide Cabinet with the information to identify specific opportunities to proceed with the development of Participatory Budgeting.

To consider any such declarations. 

Councillor Evelyn Archer declared a personal and prejudicial interest with regard to item 8 of the agenda, the Winter Gardens, Morecambe (Minute 9 refers).

To consider any such requests received in accordance with the approved procedure. 

 

Members were advised that there had been no requests to speak at the meeting in accordance with Cabinet’s agreed procedure. 

 

Report of the Chief Executive.

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Roger Mace)

 

The Chief Executive submitted a report that sought agreement for Lancaster City Council to host the International Youth Games in the summer of 2009 and to delegate the arrangements to the Head of Democratic Services and the Head of Cultural Services within the allocated budget. 

 

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

 

Option 1 is to hold the Games in the Lancaster District in the summer of 2009.  This would enable the participation of young people from the District and would also maintain the four year cycle established for the Games, providing children of twinned towns the opportunity of visiting the Lancaster District and the experience of living with a local family.

 

There are risks associated with hosting in the Games in terms of the capacity of the Council to undertake such a resource intensive project and also in terms of the reliance on local sporting organisations and volunteers.  However this was achieved in 2005 and making a decision at this stage enables the project to be well planned in advance and the workload spread as far as possible

 

Option 2 is not to host the Games in the Lancaster District in 2009.

 

The risk to the Council of not hosting the Games is in respect of its reputation both with other twinned cities and also with local children who will be expecting the opportunity to take part in Games in their home District.

 

The Officer preferred option was to host the International Youth Games in the Lancaster District in 2009. The City Council does not participate in many twinning events, and this provides an opportunity to showcase the District to our Twin and Associate Towns and maintain the cultural experience for young people of the area. 

 

It was moved by Councillor Abbott Bryning and seconded by Councillor Shirley Burns:-

 

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

 

Members then voted as follows.

 

Resolved Unanimously:

 

(1)     That the International Youth Games be held in the Lancaster District in the Summer of 2009 and that the arrangements for the Games be delegated to the Head of Democratic Services and the Head of Cultural Services within the budget allocated. 

 

(2)     That an invitation for four civic delegates to attend from Twin Towns and two Civic Delegates from Associate Towns be extended on behalf of the City Council. 

 

Officers responsible for effecting the decision:

 

Chief Executive. 

Head of Cultural Services. 

Head of Democratic Services. 

 

Reason for making the decision:

 

The International Youth Games are an important part of the City Council’s continued commitment to twinning.   Holding the Games in the Lancaster District provides an opportunity for the area to be showcased to our Twin and Associate Towns, and also allows the opportunity for us to meet with our Civic counterparts and maintain these important relationships.  It also allows children from other countries to experience life in England  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

Report of the Chief Executive. 

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Roger Mace)

 

The Chief Executive submitted a report that gave consideration to the membership and terms of reference of the Cabinet Committee, Cabinet Liaison Groups and also Cabinet appointments to Outside Bodies, Partnerships and Boards. 

 

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

 

With regard to the Cabinet Committee and Cabinet Liaison Groups the options were:

 

To note existing arrangements and make no amendments other than to the memberships. 

 

To consider and approve, where appropriate, any proposals from Cabinet Members. 

 

With regard to the Outside Bodies, Partnerships and Boards the options were for Cabinet to make appointments, as set out in the Appendix to the report. 

 

The Officer preferred option was for appointments to be aligned as closely as possible to individual Cabinet Members’ portfolios. 

 

It was moved by Councillor Roger Mace and seconded by Councillor Eileen Blamire -

 

“That Cabinet agrees to re-constitute the existing Committee and Liaison Groups previously constituted with the exception of the Children and Young People’s Cabinet Liaison Group and that no additional Committees or Liaison Groups be created and that recommendations (3) as set out in the report and appointments set out in recommendation (5), as amended at the meeting, be approved.” 

 

Cabinet Committee

 

Lancaster and Morecambe Markets Committee:

 

Councillors Roger Mace (Lead Member), Evelyn Archer, Jon Barry and Abbott Bryning.

 

Cabinet Liaison Groups

 

Canal Corridor Cabinet Liaison Group

 

Councillor Roger Mace, Lead Member

 

Climate Change Cabinet Liaison Group

 

Councillor Jon Barry, Lead Member

 

District Wide Tenants Liaison Group

 

Councillor David Kerr, Lead Member

 

Gypsy and Traveller Cabinet Liaison Group

 

Councillor David Kerr, Lead Member

 

 

Lancaster and District Chamber Cabinet Liaison Group

 

Councillor Roger Mace, Lead Member

 

Morecambe Retail, Commercial and Tourism Cabinet Liaison Group

 

Councillor Roger Mace, Lead Member

 

Planning Policy Cabinet Liaison Group

 

Councillor Eileen Blamire, Lead Member

 

Recycling Cabinet Liaison Group

 

Councillor Jon Barry, Lead Member

 

Transport Cabinet Liaison Group

 

Councillor Roger Mace, Lead Member

 

Universities Cabinet Liaison Group

 

Councillor John Gilbert, Lead Member

 

 

It was then moved by Councillor Roger Mace: -

 

“That Councillor Roger Mace be appointed to the LSP Partnership Board with Councillor Eileen Blamire substitute and that Councillor Roger Mace be appointed to the LSP Management Group with Councillor Tony Johnson substitute.”

 

The Chairman advised that there was no seconder to the proposal and it was therefore declared lost.

 

It was proposed by Councillor David Kerr and seconded by Councillor Shirley Burns:

 

“That Councillor Roger Mace be appointed to the LSP Partnership Board and Councillor Evelyn Archer be appointed substitute to the LSP Partnership Board.”

 

By way of an amendment it was proposed by Councillor Jon Barry and seconded by Councillor Jane Fletcher:

 

“That Councillor Eileen Blamire be appointed to the LSP Partnership Board with Councillor Evelyn Archer as substitute and that Councillor Roger Mace be appointed to the LSP Management Board with Councillor Tony Johnson as substitute.”

 

The meeting adjourned at  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

Report of the Corporate Director (Regeneration).

 (Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Evelyn Archer)

 

(Councillor Evelyn Archer had declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the following item due to being a member of the Friends of the Winter Gardens and left the meeting). 

 

The Corporate Director (Regeneration) submitted a report that requested Cabinet to note progress on the Winter Gardens project development and the invitation made by the NWDA to the Winter Gardens Preservation Trust to apply for a £300,000 grant, and, on approval of the grant application, for Cabinet to agree to contract with the Trust as Accountable Body for NWDA funds and update the Capital Programme. 

 

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

 

Option	Advantages	Disadvantages	Risk and Mitigation
Option 1   Accept the recommendation of Programme Management Group for the Winter Gardens project to be included in the Capital Programme and for the Council, as the Accountable Body for NWDA funds, to contract with the Trust	·      Assists the Trust in delivering an important element/phase of their scheme. ·      Allows for progress on a key element of the Vision and council priority. ·      Contributes towards achievement of Vision spend targets ·      Council is accustomed to dealing and contracting with third parties to deliver spend and project objectives.   This is the preferred option.	·     Accountable body status confers risk and responsibility on the Council. ·     Ability of the Trust to deliver on contractual commitments. ·    Potential frustration by the Trust as the delivery organisation in the necessary protocols and procedure for prudent delivery of spend.	·       As part of the package of work to be undertaken with the £300,000 the Trust is intending to employ direct project management resources and further investment in its own capacity to deliver this complex scheme.   ·       Council officer time has been given in support of the application process to date and the Council will continue to assist the Trust in recruiting the support necessary to manage this phase of the development work.   ·       The detailed Vision application, monitoring and evaluation process should also assist the Trust in delivering their contractual commitments.
Option 2   Cabinet does not accept the recommendation of Programme Management Group.	·      No advantages identified given previous Cabinet commitments to supporting Vision and Winter Gardens project.	·    Failure to deliver against a critical funding opportunity offered at a high officer level by NWDA. ·    Potential loss of confidence  in Council by key partners	·          Non-delivery of spend and benefits would undermine confidence in the Vision and the Council’s ability to access funds.  Mitigation would have to be referred back to key funding agencies and delivery protocols reviewed.

 

The Officer preferred option was option 1 as it provides the Trust with the ability to deliver the next phase of its activity and currently provides the only mechanism by which the Council can make funding available through the Vision to the project under appropriate scrutiny, monitoring and control mechanisms.

 

It was moved by Councillor Shirley Burns and seconded by Councillor David Kerr: -

 

“That the recommendations, as set out in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

Report of the Corporate Director (Finance and Performance).  

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Tony Johnson)

 

The Corporate Director (Finance and Performance) submitted a report that requested Cabinet to consider the recommendations from the recent Comprehensive Performance Assessment (CPA) inspection and agree any actions as appropriate. 

 

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

 

1              To note the actions taken to date to address the CPA inspection report recommendations and approve the action plan attached as Appendix A to the report. 

 

2              To note the actions taken to date to address the CPA inspection report recommendations and approve an amended action plan. 

 

The Officer preferred option was option 1. 

 

It was moved by Councillor Eileen Blamire and seconded by Councillor Evelyn Archer -

 

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

 

Members then voted as follows.

 

Resolved:

 

(5 Members voted in favour (Councillors Evelyn Archer, Eileen Blamire, Shirley Burns, David Kerr and Roger Mace) and 4 Members (Councillors Jon Barry, Abbott Bryning, Jane Fletcher and John Gilbert) abstained from voting).

 

(1)     That Cabinet notes the actions already taken in respect of the CPA recommendations and approve the action plan, submitted as an Appendix to the report, to deliver further improvements. 

 

Officer responsible for effecting the decision:

 

Corporate Director (Finance and Performance). 

 

Reason for making the decision:

 

The City Council has been recognised as an improving Council by the Audit Commission’s inspectors.  To continue the improvement journey approval of the action plan will see the remaining inspector’s recommendations implemented.

Report of the Corporate Director (Finance and Performance).  

 

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Tony Johnson)

 

The Corporate Director (Finance and Performance) submitted a report that informed Cabinet of the creation of the Lancashire Improvement and Efficiency Partnership - Team Lancashire, and sought endorsement for the City Council to participate fully within the Partnership and to agree nominations to attend the launch event and, secondly, to agree proposals for Officers to develop a three year Improvement and Efficiency Strategy for the City Council. 

 

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

 

Option 1:

 

To note the new improvement and efficiency framework, endorse the Council’s participation in Team Lancashire, and to develop a three year Improvement and Efficiency Strategy for the Council.

 

Option 2:

 

To note the new improvement and efficiency framework but not participate in Team Lancashire and pursue an alternative method of securing improvement and efficiencies.

 

The Officer preferred option was option 1.

 

It was moved by Councillor Roger Mace and seconded by Councillor David Kerr:-

 

“That the recommendations 1, 2 and 4, as set out in the report, be approved.”

 

By way of amendment it was moved by Councillor Roger Mace and seconded by Councillor David Kerr:-

 

“That recommendation 3, as set out in the report be approved, and that Councillors Eileen Blamire and Roger Mace be nominated to attend the launch event of Team Lancashire on 10^th July 2008.” 

 

The meeting were advised of an additional road show organised by the North West Partnership on 11^th July 2008 in Preston. 

 

By way of further amendment it was moved by Councillor David Kerr and seconded by Councillor Jane Fletcher: -

 

“That the Budget and Performance Panel be invited to send representatives to the North West Partnership road show in Preston on 11^th July 2008.”

 

Members then voted as follows.

 

Resolved:

 

(8 Members (Councillors Evelyn Archer, Eileen Blamire, Shirley Burns, Abbott Bryning, Jane Fletcher, John Gilbert, David Kerr and Roger Mace) voted in favour and 1 Member (Councillor Jon Barry) abstained from voting)

 

(1)  That Cabinet note the changes being made in developing a national improvement and efficiency framework. 

 

(2)     That Cabinet endorse the Council’s participation in the Lancashire Improvement and Efficiency Partnership – Team Lancashire. 

 

(3)     That Councillors Eileen Blamire and Roger Mace be nominated to attend the launch event of Team Lancashire on 10^th July 2008. 

 

(4)     That Officers develop a three year Improvement and Efficiency Strategy for the Council. 

 

(5)     That the Budget and Performance Panel be invited to send representatives to the North West Partnership road show in Preston on 11^th July 2008.

 

Officer responsible for effecting the decision:

 

Corporate Director (Finance and Performance). 

 

Reason for making the decision:

 

The opportunities presented by participating in Team Lancashire would significantly help the City Council to deliver its Corporate Plan savings targets.  The development of a three year Improvement and Efficiency Strategy for the City Council would provide a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

Report of the Chief Executive. 

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Jane Fletcher)

 

The Chief Executive submitted a report that requested Cabinet to consider how to take forward community cohesion within Lancaster District in the context of the Area Based Grant. 

 

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

 

Option 1          To pull together the existing employee resource allocated to equality and diversity issues within HR, combine with resources from the ABG to create a whole time equivalent officer and a commissioning budget. 

 

                                    The officer will be located in the most appropriate City Council Service (Corporate Strategy) or the work programme to be procured from another organisation.

 

Option 2          That the ABG be used in some other way to be determined by Cabinet.  Should Cabinet resolve to use the ABG for different purposes, there will be a resourcing issue in respect of the Corporate Plan action to achieve Levels 2 and 3 of the Equality Standard.

 

The Officer preferred option was Option 1.  The allocation of ABG to the City Council offers a timely opportunity for the Council to address the issues it faces in terms of community cohesion, equality and diversity.

 

It was moved by Councillor Eileen Blamire and seconded by Councillor Jane Fletcher: -

 

“That a decision on the recommendations, as set out in the report, be deferred for six months to enable a detailed action plan to be produced and considered.”

 

By way of amendment it was then moved by Councillor Jon Barry and seconded by Councillor John Gilbert:-

 

“That option 1, as set out in the report, be approved, subject to the addition of:-

 

That a detailed implementation report be produced in consultation with the LSP thematic group and forwarded for consideration by Cabinet once an officer has been appointed.”

 

On considering the above, Councillor Eileen Blamire, with the agreement of her seconder and the meeting withdrew her proposition. 

 

Members then voted as follows.

 

Resolved:

 

(5 Members (Councillors Eileen Blamire, Abbott Bryning, Jon Barry, John Gilbert and Jane Fletcher) voted for the motion, 3 Members (Councillors Shirley Burns, David Kerr and Roger Mace) voted against and 1 Member (Councillor Evelyn Archer) abstained from voting).

 

(1)               That the Community Cohesion element of the Area Based Grant (ABG) be used to support the establishment of a new post of a Community Cohesion Officer, initially for a period of 3 years, and to commission community cohesion activities as set out in the report. 

 

(2)     That a detailed implementation report be produced in consultation with the LSP thematic group and forwarded for consideration by Cabinet once an officer has been appointed. 

 

(3)     That the Revenue Budget be updated accordingly. 

 

Officers responsible for effecting the decision:

 

Chief Executive.

Head of Financial Services. 

 

Reason for making the decision:

 

The decision for the allocation of ABG to the City Council offers a timely opportunity for the City Council to address the issues it faces in terms of community cohesion,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.

Members are asked whether they need to declare any further declarations of interest regarding the exempt report. 

 

Cabinet is recommended to pass the following recommendation in relation to the following item:- 

 

“That, in accordance with Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act, 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business, on the grounds that it could involve the possible disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraphs 3 and 5 of Schedule 12A of that Act.” 

 

Members are reminded that, whilst the following items have been marked as exempt, it is for the Council itself to decide whether or not to consider each of them 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. 

It was moved by Councillor Abbott Bryning and seconded by Councillor Eileen Blamire:-

 

“That, in accordance with Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business on the ground that it could involve the possible disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraphs 3 and 5 of Schedule 12A of that Act.”

 

Members then voted as follows:

 

Resolved unanimously:

 

(1)        That, in accordance with Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business on the ground that it could involve the possible disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraphs 3 and 5 of Schedule 12A of that Act.

Report of the Head of Planning Services to follow.

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Abbott Bryning)

 

Mark Cullinan, Chief Executive, declared an interest in this matter. 

 

The Head of Planning Services submitted a report advising Cabinet that subsequent to the City Council’s compulsory purchase of land certain compensation claims from third parties would now likely be settled at the Lands Tribunal and this report sought decisions from Cabinet on how Officers were authorised and resourced to proceed. 

 

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

 

The Council has no real options. It has a duty to make its strongest possible cases at Lands Tribunal. To not do so increases financial risks to the Council.  It is considered that this can be achieved via officers taking a project team approach resourced from both in-house capacities and with specialist external legal and other support as deemed necessary.  Officers consider this option will require the Council to make an additional budget provision of £200,000 available for the regeneration project. 

 

It was moved by Councillor Abbott Bryning and seconded by Councillor John Gilbert:-

 

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

Members then voted as follows.

 

Resolved Unanimously:

 

(1)   That the Head of Planning Services be authorised to assemble a project team to prepare and make the Council’s cases at Lands Tribunal in respect of compensation claims made. 

 

(2)   That the provisional transfer of any additional Local Authority Business Growth Incentive grant into the Capital Support Reserve be approved, to fund external professional support costs for Luneside up to a maximum of £200K and any ‘Calderbank’ offer in connection with recommendation (3) below, subject to the transfer being considered in more detail as part of the 2007/08 outturn, to be reported to Cabinet at the end of July. 

 

(3)   That the Corporate Director (Regeneration) be authorised, in consultation with the Head of Financial Services and Legal Services Manager, to make any “Calderbank” offer if this is considered to be a prudent action in seeking to mitigate risks to the Council and its costs. 

 

(4)   That the proposed arrangements for the procurement of any external professional support required, on the grounds of urgency be noted. 

 

(5)   That, in view of the fact that the decision is required urgently in order that the Council can begin to prepare for the Lands Tribunal, the Chief Executive be requested to waive the call in procedure in accordance with overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rule 17 (a) to enable immediate implementation. 

 

Officers responsible for effecting the decision:

 

Chief Executive. 

Corporate Director (Regeneration). 

Head of Financial Services.

Head of Planning Services. 

 

Reason for making the decision:

 

The City Council must ensure that it defends robustly its valuations as sustained throughout the CPO process and it is essential that an appropriate professional team is established to represent the Council at the lands Tribunal.  To not do so increases financial risks to the City Council.  It is considered that this  ...  view the full minutes text for item 14.