Agenda and minutes

To receive as a correct record the minutes of Cabinet held on Tuesday, 2 March 2021 (previously circulated). 

The minutes of the meeting held on Tuesday 2 March 2021 were approved as a correct record.

The Chair advised that there were no items of urgent business.

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

Councillors 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, Councillors 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, Councillors 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. 

No declarations were made at this point.

Members were advised that there had been two requests to speak at the meeting from members of the public in accordance with Cabinet’s agreed procedure, as set out in Cabinet Procedure Rule 18, with regard to the STEP Site Nomination Expression of Interest report (Minute 127 refers).  Mr Rich Grant and Professor Malcolm Joyce addressed Cabinet in support of the report.

Following Mr Grant’s address to Cabinet the Chair requested that standing order 17 (Cabinet Procedure Rule 17) be suspended to allow for questions to be taken from all members. The proposal was moved by Councillor Brookes, seconded by Councillor Hamilton-Cox and there was no dissent to the proposal.

 Resolved unanimously:

(1) That Standing Order 17 (Cabinet Procedure Rule 17) be suspended.

Mr Grant responded to questions and Professor Joyce was then invited to address Cabinet and respond to questions.  The Chair thanked the public speakers for their contribution to the meeting.

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Hamilton-Cox)

Report of Director for Economic Growth & Regeneration   (report published on 17 March 2021)

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Hamilton-Cox)

Cabinet received a report from the Director for Economic Growth and Regeneration which sought approval to submit an Expression of Interest nominating a site for the Spherical Tokamak for Energy Production (STEP) project to the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA).

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

The officer preferred option was to submit the Expression of Interest.

In accordance with the Constitution Part 3, Section 3 of Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rule 17 the Chief Executive had consulted with the Chair of Overview and Scrutiny prior to the Cabinet meeting in relation to Urgency and Call-in if the recommendation was approved. The reason for the urgency was that the Expression of Interest needed to be provided before the 31 March and if the report was called in the deadline would pass for the submission of the expression.

Councillor Hamilton-Cox proposed, seconded by Councillor Hanson:-

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

Councillors then voted:-

Resolved:

(6 Members (Councillors Hamilton-Cox, Evans, Hanson, Hartley, Lewis & Whitehead) voted in favour, 4 Members (Councillors Brookes, Dowding, Frea and Jackson) voted against.)

(1)         That an Expression of Interest nominating a site for the Spherical Tokamak for Energy Production (STEP) project be submitted to the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA) prior to the deadline of 31 March 2021.

Officer responsible for effecting the decision:

Director for Economic Growth & Regeneration

Reasons for making the decision:

STEP (Spherical Tokamak for Energy Production) is an ambitious programme to design and build a prototype fusion power plant.  In Autumn 2020, there was an open call to communities across the UK to host the prototype. UKAEA will make a recommendation to the Secretary of State for BEIS on the most suitable locations for STEP following a rigorous process of assessment using a defined set of key criteria.  The decision enables an Expression of Interest to be submitted prior to the deadline on 31 March 2021.

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Frea)

Report of Director for Communities & the Environment (report published on 18 March 2021)

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Frea)

Cabinet received a report from the Director for Communities and the Environment which sought approval to provide the Chief Executive with delegated authority to award the contract for the solar scheme, air source heat pumps and building upgrades at Salt Ayre Leisure centre following the completion of a number of compliant procurement exercises.

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

The officer preferred option is Option 1: Award of Contract – Delegated Decision to Chief Executive - That Cabinet support the request to provide delegated authority to the Chief Executive to award the associated contracts when a decision is ready to be made in order to support and enable officers to meet the required delivery deadline.

Councillor Frea proposed, seconded by Councillor Brookes:-

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

Councillors then voted:-

Resolved unanimously:

(1)              That Cabinet support the request to provide delegated authority to the Chief  Executive to award the associated contracts when a decision is ready to be made.

(2)     That Cabinet notes the latest financial information surrounding the proposal and   endorses its position to delegate acceptance of the grant to Director of Communities & Environment and Section 151 Officer.

Officers responsible for effecting the decision:

Chief Executive

Director for Communities and the Environment

Section 151 Officer

Reasons for making the decision:

The decision provides the Chief Executive with delegated authority to award the contracts and meet the tight timescales and conditions attached to grant funding and is consistent with the following Council priorities and cross-cutting themes:

·        An inclusive and prosperous local economy. A proportion of the overall evaluation will include an element of social value, in line with the procurement strategy and contract procedure rules.

·        Climate Emergency – Net zero 2030 ambition. SALC is the council’s single largest CO2 emitter within its property portfolio. This project is expected to reduce CO2 from SALC by up to 58% and generate a net reduction of 12% for the council.

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Lewis)

Report of Chief Executive    (report published on 19 March 2021)

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Lewis)

Cabinet received a report from the Chief Executive which sought Cabinet’s endorsement of the proposed approach to the government’s consultation on Local Government Reorganisation and for Cabinet to recommend that approach to Council.

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

There is an option not to submit a response. The Council’s full proposal indicates the benefits and opportunities which could be realised for residents and businesses by a Bay Unitary. By not submitting a response to consultation on the proposals submitted, the Council would significantly reduce its influence in the reorganisation of local government. This option is not recommended.

The officer preferred option is to submit responses to the government’s consultation, taking the opportunity to influence decisions on local government arrangements for the area. Responding to the consultation does not create any specific risks for the council and would reinforce the strength of the proposal for the Bay unitary. Not responding to the consultation creates the risk that the Council is not able to influence the outcome of proposals.

Councillor Lewis proposed, seconded by Councillor Hanson:-

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

Councillors then voted:-

Resolved unanimously:

(1)             That the Council report and appendices attached to the report be noted and Cabinet endorses and recommends to Council the proposed approach to the government’s consultation on Local Government Reorganisation.

Officer responsible for effecting the decision:

Chief Executive

Reasons for making the decision:

Following the submission of the proposal for a unitary council for the Bay, the government has now opened up consultation on all four proposals for Cumbria, including the Bay proposal which includes Lancaster. This is an important opportunity for the Council to influence the future of local government in this area. At its meeting on 24 March Council will be asked to agree the key principles included in Appendices 1 and 2 to the report so that a response can be made by the deadline of the 19 April.

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Jackson)

Report of Director for Communities & the Environment

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Jackson)

Cabinet received a report from the Director for Communities and the Environment which provided an update on the Mainway estate project and sought authorisation to proceed to the next stages.

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

From the work undertaken so far it is clear this project provides an opportunity to work with the community to develop a vision for the Mainway area that contributes significantly towards the priorities agreed by the Council and outlined at the outset of this report. Work has been undertaken to start to develop the vision with further work required to set out clearly what the possibilities are. In order to deliver this vision a view on the different options for the buildings in the area is required.

There are essentially 4 options: -

 A) Refurbish the existing buildings to extend their life by approximately 25-30 years. The cost of this option is estimated to be £23.5M. This option would still require tenants to be relocated whilst works were undertaken. The end product would still not meet the Council’s standards for housing energy efficiency, health, safety and security. It would essentially be a short-term repair, with little prospect of recovering the investment from rent returns before a further development or repair project would be required.

B) Demolish and rebuild the estate. The cost of this option is estimated to be £37M (keeping a similar number of properties within the Council’s portfolio). It is envisaged that the estate will mainly be built for social housing however further detailed analysis in terms of a mixed tenure scheme including opportunities for market and affordable rent, as well as other options and delivery through More Homes for the Bay (yet to be incorporated) will need to be considered. Additional properties could be considered however, to keep the integrity of the proposed new estate and ensure planning approval, this will be difficult.

C) Demolish the estate, sell the land and seek to rebuild elsewhere. This is the least worked up option. On the basis that a) there will be considerable demolition costs that will offset the value of the land b) the Council does not have alternative land to build equivalent properties and c) uprooting an established community and moving people elsewhere creates considerable conflicts with the Council’s intended outcomes for the District and its residents.

D) Demolish the estate, sell the land and don’t rebuild lost properties elsewhere. Along with option C this option has not been worked up in any detail. Properties would all need to be vacated within 5yrs- this would create a local housing crisis and creates a significant conflict with the Council’s intended outcome for the District and its residents. There would be considerable risk to the future of the HRA through lost rental income.

Based on the work undertaken to date options A and B are the only options that are able to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 130.