Agenda and minutes

The Chairman advised the meeting that the 23^rd May marked the 25^th Anniversary of the Abbeystead disaster where a number of residents of St. Michaels-On-Wyre, visiting a pumping station in Abbeystead, had been killed.

The Chairman requested Members to hold one minute’s silence to commemorate those people who had lost their lives in the tragedy.

To receive as a correct record the minutes of Cabinet held on Tuesday, 21^st April 2009 (previously circulated). 

The minutes of the meeting held on Tuesday 21^st April 2009 were approved as a correct record.

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 were no items of urgent business.

To consider any such declarations. 

No declarations were made at this point.

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 the Cabinet’s agreed procedure.

The Chairman advised that Councillor Robinson would be speaking as Ward Councillor regarding the West End Masterplan item.

The Chief Executive submitted a report asking Members to consider 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:

The options are:

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

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

With regard to Outside Bodies, Partnerships and Boards, Cabinet is requested to make appointments as set out in Appendix C to the report. 

The Officer recommendation is that appointments be aligned to individual Cabinet Members’ portfolios.

Members considered each Cabinet Committee and Cabinet Liaison Group in turn (a table showing all the decisions is appended to these minutes for clarity).

It was moved by Councillor Langhorn and seconded by Councillor Archer:-

“That the Lancaster and Morecambe Markets Cabinet Committee be stood down.”

Members then voted:-

Resolved:

(6 Members (Councillors Archer, Ashworth, Kerr, Langhorn, Mace and Thomas) voted in favour and 4 Members (Councillors Barry, Blamire, Bryning and Fletcher) voted against.)

(1)        That the Lancaster and Morecambe Markets Cabinet Committee be stood down.

It was moved by Councillor Langhorn and seconded by Councillor Archer:-

“That the Canal Corridor Cabinet Liaison Group be continued and retain the Leader of the Council as Chairman.”

Members then voted:-

Resolved:

(9 Members (Councillors Archer, Ashworth, Blamire, Bryning, Fletcher, Kerr, Langhorn, Mace and Thomas) voted in favour and 1 Member (Councillor Barry) voted against.)

(2)        That the Canal Corridor Cabinet Liaison Group be continued and retain the Leader of the Council as Chairman.

It was moved by Councillor Langhorn and seconded by Councillor Mace:-

“That the Children and Young People Cabinet Liaison Group be stood down.”

3 Members (Councillors Langhorn, Mace and Thomas) voted in favour of the proposition and 7 Members (Councillors Archer, Ashworth, Barry, Blamire, Bryning, Fletcher and Kerr) voted against, whereupon the Chairman declared the proposition to be lost.

It was moved by Councillor Barry and seconded by Councillor Ashworth:-

“That the Climate Change Cabinet Liaison Group be continued.”

Members then voted:-

Resolved:

(8 Members (Councillors Archer, Ashworth, Barry, Blamire, Bryning, Fletcher, Kerr, and Thomas) voted in favour and 2 Members (Councillors Langhorn and Mace) voted against.)

(3)        That the Climate Change Cabinet Liaison Group be continued.

It was moved by Councillor Kerr and seconded by Councillor Archer:-

“That a decision on the continuation of the District Wide Tenants Liaison Group be deferred until views are sought from the Tenants Forum.”

Members then voted:-

Resolved:

(7 Members (Councillors Archer, Ashworth, Barry, Blamire, Bryning, Fletcher and Kerr) voted in favour, 1 Member (Councillor Langhorn) voted against and 2 Members (Councillors Mace and Thomas) abstained.)

(4)        That a decision on the continuation of the District Wide Tenants Liaison Group be deferred until views are sought from the Tenants Forum.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

Report of the Corporate Director (Finance and Performance).

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Thomas)

The Corporate Director (Finance and Performance) submitted a report asking Members to consider a request from the Lancaster District Local Strategic Partnership for the City Council to become the Accountable Body for Migrant Impact Fund should its bid to central government be successful.

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

1        That, depending upon Government Office’s response to these bids from across Lancashire, discussions take place between the City Council and Lancashire County Council as to which organisation is best placed to become the Accountable Body for this fund. If it is determined that that the City Council is best placed to be that body then Cabinet agrees to become the Accountable body for the Migrant Impact Fund.

2        To not agree to become the accountable body for this funding.

Risk Analysis

This grant allocation (if successful) is not ring-fenced and has no mandatory reporting process against it other than that already required (e.g. national indicators). The LSP will be asked to submit a self assessment setting out project progress.

As the City Council already acts as Accountable Body for the LDLSP in respect of second homes funding, accounting procedures are already in place in respect of transfer of funds to the LDLSP and therefore the City Council could become the Accountable Body should discussions with Lancashire County Council recommended that course of action.

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

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

Members then voted:-

Resolved unanimously:

(1)               That, subject to discussions with Lancashire County Council as to who would be best placed to become the Accountable Body for the Migrant Impact Fund should the LDLSP’s bid to central government be successful, that, if required, Lancaster City Council agree to undertake the role.

(2)               That subject to the above, the Revenue Budget be updated accordingly.

Officers responsible for effecting the decision:

Corporate Director (Finance and Performance)

Head of Financial Services

Reasons for making the decision:

The decision is supportive of the LSP’s bid, allowing flexibility depending upon the outcome of discussions with Lancashire County Council.

Report of the Corporate Director (Finance and Performance).

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Langhorn)

The Corporate Director (Finance and Performance) submitted a report for noting on the fourth quarter of Performance Review Team meetings for 2008/09.

It was moved by Councillor Langhorn and seconded by Councillor Kerr:-

“That the report be noted.”

Members then voted:-

Resolved unanimously:

(1)        That the report be noted.

Officers responsible for effecting the decision:

Corporate Director (Finance and Performance)

Reasons for making the decision:

The Council’s Performance Management Framework requires the regular reporting of performance to Cabinet as part of the Performance Review Team cycle of meetings.

Report of the Corporate Director (Regeneration).

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Archer)

(Councillor Robinson, who had requested to address Cabinet as a Harbour Ward Councillor, spoke to this item.)

The Corporate Director (Regeneration) submitted a report updating members on the Mid-term Review of the West End Masterplan and recommendations arising from appraisal and outline the next steps in implementing and maintaining local scrutiny of the refreshed priorities.

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

The following options have been identified:

While the focus of the review is around the economic regeneration theme, it should be noted that particular economically ‘low ranking’ proposals may find support within the LDLSP’s other Thematic Groups and their associated priorities.   Essentially the West End Masterplan Mid-term Review and the implementation plan is a programme rather than a collection of individual projects. It provides a strategic overview and a framework for any projects that are supported. As individual projects are developed they will be subject to detailed internal appraisal and conform to the Council’s project management systems.

Option 2 is the Officer preferred option as this providesa clear commitment and direction for economic and housing regeneration work in the West End through the stated priorities and outline implementation plan. Cabinet can be reassured by the fact that the projects and recommendations have been subject to independent appraisal and community consultation.

The Local Governance and Scrutiny of Masterplan implementation options, options analysis, including risk assessment, were set out in the report as follows:

Report of the Corporate Director (Community Services).

The Corporate Director (Community Services) submitted a report advising Cabinet that a joint County Council/District Council submission promoting cycling on Morecambe Promenade had been shortlisted for a National Transport Award and for Cabinet to consider if they wish to send representatives to the award ceremony.

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

(1)               Do not send representatives to the National Transport Awards dinner

(2)               The City Council to be represented at the National Transport Awards dinner by two Members and one officer.

It was moved by Councillor Thomas and seconded by Councillor Mace:-

“That the City Council does not send representatives to the National Transport Awards dinner.”

Members then voted:-

Resolved unanimously:

(1)        That the City Council does not send representatives to the National Transport Awards dinner.

Officer responsible for effecting the decision:

Corporate Director (Community Services)

Reasons for making the decision:

The decision reflects Cabinet’s view that funding be prioritised for cycling projects not sending representatives to the awards ceremony.

Report of the Corporate Director (Community Services) and Head of Financial Services.

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Kerr)

The Corporate Director (Community Services) and Head of Financial Services submitted a joint report updating Cabinet on the recent changes that Government introduced regarding the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) subsidy arrangements for 2009/10, and the associated implications and options for councils housing rents for the current year.

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

The Council has two options:

(1)               Do nothing; i.e. leave council housing rent levels as they are.

(2)               Reduce the average annual council housing rent increase for 2009/10 from 5% to 3.05%, resulting in an average rent of £58.45 over the year, and implement as set out in the report, with the associated updates to the revenue budget.

The advantages of the ‘do nothing’ option are that there would be no additional administrative burden to either Council Housing (new rent letters and additional IT system changes) or the Housing Benefits section (retrospective benefit entitlement changes). The main disadvantages are that tenants have been asked to pay rent increases substantially higher than the level of inflation and there is a general expectancy, after the Government’s recent announcements, that rent increases will be lowered; ‘doing nothing’ would not meet these expectations.  Also, under this option the Council would lose the opportunity to benefit from the associated increase in subsidy.  In the circumstances, it would be difficult to justify keeping the rent increase at 5%.

In terms of the option for changing rent levels, whilst there would be additional administrative work generated as a result and potential difficulties in communicating effectively the associated implications for tenants, overall, financially, both tenants and the City Council would gain from the proposals in the current year.  As the whole year reduction will be condensed and applied in total to the remaining 32 weeks of the year, the advantage to the tenant is in the real reduction of rent by an average £1.66 per week. This amounts to a 2.79% reduction in average rent (from £59.56 to £57.90) for the 32-week period.

That said, it is not known whether there would be any implications for future years – this would be dependent on Government’s future proposals and the outcome of its much wider review of the housing subsidy system.  It should be noted, however, that for 2010/11, it would be expected that any rent increase would be calculated on the revised year average rent of £58.45, and not the condensed average of £57.90.  This could create difficulties in tenants’ future perceptions.

There is, therefore, some risk attached regarding future years, but any financial implications cannot really be measured as yet.  Cabinet should note that this proposal focuses only on rents for 2009/10 – future years’ prospects and targets would be picked up as part of the next budget process.

The Officer preferred Option is Option 2 – to reduce the average annual council housing rent increase for 2009/10 from 5% to 3.05%, resulting in an  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

Report of the Corporate Director (Community Services).

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Archer)

The Corporate Director (Regeneration) submitted a report informing Members that the current Residual Highways Agreement between Lancaster City Council and Lancashire County Council was due to terminate at the end of June 2009. The report proposed the adoption of a revised agreement called the Street Services Agreement which has been offered in its place by the County Council. This would continue to allow the City Council to maintain its assets on the highway and permit other activities within the highway which would be of benefit to the City Council.

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

Option 1, to enter into the Street Services agreement with Lancashire County Council is the Officer preferred option.

It was moved by Councillor Barry and seconded by Councillor Blamire:-

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

Members then voted:-

Resolved unanimously:

(1)       That Lancaster City Council enters into a legal agreement with Lancashire County Council named the Street Services Agreement until March 2014 with an option for a review after two years and options for further extension.

Officers responsible for effecting the decision:

Corporate Director (Regeneration)

Head of Planning Services

Reasons for making the decision:

Whilst Lancaster City Council no longer has a Highways Agency it is important to maintain the ability to carry out work in the highway to the benefit of the local population. This agreement will provide the means for the continuation of this work.

The Head of Democratic Services submitted a report informing Members of actions taken by the Chief Executive, in consultation with the relevant Cabinet Members and the Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee in accordance with the Scheme of Delegation.

It was moved by Councillor Langhorn and seconded by Councillor Kerr:-

“(1)      That the actions taken by the Chief Executive, in consultation with the relevant Cabinet Members and the Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee in accordance with the Scheme of Delegation, in relation to the following matters, be noted.

(a)        Seven Day per Week Opening of Morecambe Visitor Information Centre – Trial Period

(b)        Quick Response Vehicle

(c)        Freedom of Information Request – Canal Corridor.”

Members then voted:-

Resolved unanimously:

(1)        That the actions taken by the Chief Executive, in consultation with the relevant Cabinet Members and the Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee in accordance with the Scheme of Delegation, in relation to the following matters, be noted.

(a)        Seven Day per Week Opening of Morecambe Visitor Information Centre – Trial Period

(b)        Quick Response Vehicle

(c)        Freedom of Information Request – Canal Corridor.

Officer responsible for effecting the decision:

Chief Executive.

Reasons for making the decision:

The decision fulfils the requirements of the City Council’s Constitution in advising Cabinet of urgent decisions taken by the Chief Executive in accordance with the City Council’s Scheme of Delegation.

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

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

“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 they could involve the possible disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 1 and 2 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. 

The Chairman asked for any further declarations of interest from Cabinet Members regarding the exempt appendix. 

It was moved by Councillor Langhorn and seconded by Councillor Barry:-

 “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 they could involve the possible disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 1 and 2 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 grounds that they could involve the possible disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 1 and 2 of Schedule 12A of that Act.

Report of the Chief Executive.

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Thomas)

The Chief Executive submitted a report to seek Cabinet’s approval to the filling of established vacancies where recommended and to review the process for approval to the filling of established vacancies.

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

Approval for the filling of current vacancies

The information contained within each form provides details related to the risks of not filling the related vacancy.  Cabinet has the option of releasing funding on either a time limited or permanent basis or withholding funding.  If funding is not released, there will be an impact on Service provision.  If funding is time limited, it will be more difficult and possibly more expensive to fill a post.

The Officer preferred option is to fill those posts as recommended by Service Heads unless Cabinet identifies the work as being of a low priority.

Review of process for the filling of established vacancies

(a)        That the status quo is maintained, whereby Cabinet approval is required for the filling of established vacancies.

(b)        That the process set out in 1.3 of the report is reinstated (the procedure that was in place prior to Cabinet resolving to implement the current process).

The Officer preferred option is that Cabinet reinstates the previous process of Service Head delegation, noting that Cabinet Members can discuss turnover issues with Service Heads in the Services they oversee.

It was moved by Councillor Langhorn and seconded by Councillor Archer:-

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

Members then voted:-

Resolved:

(8 Members (Councillors Archer, Ashworth, Barry, Blamire, Bryning, Fletcher, Kerr and Langhorn) voted in favour, 1 Member (Councillor Mace) voted against and 1 Member (Councillor Thomas) abstained)

(1)        That Cabinet agrees that the vacancies recommended for filling by Service Heads are filled as soon as possible.

(2)        That the Revenue Budget be updated accordingly, for any deleted or deferred posts.

(3)               That Cabinet reinstates the previous process of Service Head delegation, noting that Cabinet Members can discuss turnover issues with Service Heads in the Services they oversee.

Officers responsible for effecting the decision:

Chief Executive

Head of Financial Services.

Reasons for making the decision:

Resolution (1) enables the decision made at Cabinet on 11^th November 2008, removing the delegated decision making to fill employee vacancies away from Service Heads to Cabinet, to be implemented.

Resolution (3) removes the extra layer of bureaucracy added by Cabinet’s involvement by returning to the procedure in place prior to 11^th November 2008, whilst noting that Cabinet Members can discuss turnover issues with Service Heads in the Services they oversee.