Agenda and minutes

Cabinet
Tuesday, 3rd October 2017 6.00 p.m.

Venue: Lancaster Town Hall

Contact: Liz Bateson, Democratic Services - telephone (01524) 582047 or email  ebateson@lancaster.gov.uk 

Items
No. Item

31.

Minutes

To receive as a correct record the minutes of Cabinet held on Tuesday, 5 September 2017 (previously circulated). 

Minutes:

The minutes of the meeting held on Tuesday 5th September 2017 were approved as a correct record.

 

32.

Items of Urgent Business Authorised by the Leader

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

Minutes:

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

 

33.

Declarations of Interest

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. 

 

Minutes:

 

Councillor Leyshon and Councillor Whitehead declared pecuniary interests in Agenda item 6, Bailrigg Garden Village Governance Proposals.  Councillor Leyshon’s pecuniary interest being that he was employed by Lancaster University.  Councillor Whitehead’s pecuniary interest was in view of her being an Emeritus Professor at Lancaster University.  (Minute 35 refers).

 

Councillor Leyshon and Councillor Whitehead declared an interest with regard to item 8, Accountable Body Authorisation for Community Groups, Councillor Leyshon being the Chair of the Palatine Projects Group and Councillor Whitehead being a member of the Palatine Projects Group.

 

No other declarations were made at this point.

 

34.

Public Speaking

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

 

Minutes:

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

 

35.

Bailrigg Garden Village Governance Proposals pdf icon PDF 227 KB

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Hanson)

 

Report of Chief Officer (Regeneration & Planning)

Additional documents:

Minutes:

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Hanson)

 

(Councillors Leyshon and Whitehead having both declared pecuniary interests in the following item left the meeting at this point and did not participate in the discussions or vote.)

 

Cabinet received a report from the Chief Officer (Regeneration & Planning) which sought approval for the governance arrangements for the Bailrigg Garden Village project.

 

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

 

 

Option 1: To agree the proposed Governance Structure

Option 2: To agree a Governance structure which excludes any representation from the University on the Project Board

Option 3: not to agree a Governance Structure.

Advantages

Establishes the structure for reporting and control of the project at an early stage before significant decisions need to be made. 

Eliminates entirely any suggestion of conflict of interest with the University’s role

None

Disadvantages

None

Distances the university from shaping strategy and using its significant resources and innovation to help shape the Garden Village. 

Further delay in progressing the project. Failing to meet the expectations of the HCA.  Reputational damage.  

Risks

Risk of conflict of interest associated with the University’s role has been mitigated.

Risk of alienating the university from the project.

Ministerial intervention

 

Option 1 is the officer preferred option.  The project is now entering an important stage where significant areas of work need to be commissioned and external funding accounted for and monitored.  Ministers are keen to see progress and the HCA are pressing for formal governance processes to be set up.  Now that the issue of how to treat the university as part of the governance structure has been resolved progress on establishing the structure and putting it into operation needs to occur. 

 

Councillor Hanson proposed, seconded by Councillor Warriner:-

 

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

 

The Cabinet Members present then voted:-

 

Resolved unanimously:

(1)             That the Governance Structure for Bailrigg Garden Village illustrated in Appendix C to the report, be approved and put into operation.

(2)             That the Project Plan contained in Appendix B to the report, be noted and the Planning Policy Cabinet Liaison Group be asked to monitor the natural evolution of that plan, with key decisions required against milestones being referred back to Cabinet as appropriate.

(3)             That it be noted that a further £130K bid for top up Capacity Funding was submitted to the Homes and Community Agency in August under delegated authority and that this funding should be accepted by the Council, if successful.

(4)             That delegated authority be given to the Chief Officer (Regeneration and Planning) in agreement with the Chief Officer (Resources) to approve the making and acceptance of further external funding bids as appropriate for project development / capacity purposes only.

(5)             That the General Fund Revenue Budget be updated as appropriate to reflect any additional expenditure and associated funding arising from recommendations 3 and 4, subject to there being a nil impact on the Council’s overall resources.

(6)  ...  view the full minutes text for item 35.

36.

'Smart District' - Connecting the Public Realm pdf icon PDF 267 KB

(Cabinet Members with Special Responsibility Councillors Hughes & Leyshon)

 

Joint Report of Chief Officer (Environment) & Chief Officer (Resources)

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

(Cabinet Members with Special Responsibility Councillors Hughes & Leyshon)

 

Cabinet received a joint report from the Chief Officer (Environment) and Chief Officer (Resources) which sought Cabinet’s support for developing the concept of ‘Smart District’ using technology to generate efficiencies and improve how we deliver our services.

 

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

 

 

Option 1: Support the concept of Smart district, and consider proposals during the forthcoming budget.

Option 2: Do not support in concept and continue with traditional methods.

Advantages

Allows consideration alongside all other budget options.

 

Allows time to develop a wider implementation plan

 

 

None

Disadvantages

None.

Lost opportunity to take advantage of digital technologies to make service improvements and efficiency savings.

Risks

 

 

 

The Officer preferred option is Option 1.  The report set out how by working in partnership the Council could take a leading role supporting economic development through the use of technology whilst at the same time generating efficiencies and improving its own services.

 

Councillor Hughes proposed, seconded by Councillor Leyshon:-

 

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

 

Councillors then voted:-

 

Resolved unanimously:

(1)             That Cabinet supports the concept of ‘Smart District’ to inform the Council’s emerging digital strategy and ‘management of the place’.

(2)             That the business case be developed further for consideration during the budget and planning process, with initial operational focus on the management of the public realm.

Officers responsible for effecting the decision:

 

Chief Officer (Environment)

Chief Officer (Resources)

 

Reasons for making the decision:

 

The decision is consistent with the Council’s corporate priority of providing clean, green and safe public spaces and enables officers to develop options for consideration as part of the budget planning process.

 

37.

Accountable Body Authorisation for Community Groups- Update pdf icon PDF 323 KB

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Hughes)

 

Report of Chief Officer (Environment)

Additional documents:

Minutes:

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Hughes)

 

Councillor Leyshon and Whitehead had previously declared an interest in this item.  At this point Councillor Hanson and Councillor Blamire both declared an interest: Councillor Hanson in view of her involvement with the Friends of Regent Park and Councillor Blamire through her involvement with the Friends of Williamson Park.

 

Cabinet received a report from the Chief Officer (Environment) to consider the approval of delegated responsibility to the Chief Officers (Environment) and (Resources) to authorise and accept external funding applications, and for the Council to act as the accountable body for community bodies working to improve facilities on council owned land.

 

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

 

 

Option 1:  Delegate Responsibilities as outlined

Option 2: Seek Cabinet approval on each individual basis

Advantages

As there are so many projects in this area of work, this will save time, allowing officers to focus on supporting the community and delivery of the corporate objective for green spaces.

 

It will allow groups to respond quickly to opportunities which arise.

 

Projects are usually funded by three or four different funding bodies.  Delegated responsibility will provide flexibility when pulling funding packages together.

 

Enables quick applications to go in to maintain community interest.

 

Allows consideration of specific budgetary pressures and commitment of future budgets as and when bidding opportunities arise.

 

Disadvantages

Annual commitments against existing budget levels may be incurred, reducing future scope to make savings in those areas.

 

It does not provide the flexibility and responsiveness which is required for these small scale community projects. Some funding is available at short notice which does not easily fit into council procedures and timescales.

 

Due to the quantity of projects and funding applications – the officer time in complying with these requirements on a project by project basis.

 

 

Risks

There will be no immediate risk regarding ongoing maintenance costs as this will be addressed at the start of any project, but would be risk associated with committing future years’ budgets, potentially.

 

There is a risk that the group don’t fulfil their requirements and the funding is reclaimed – Officers work very closely with groups to ensure this does not happen.  Acting as the accountable body also allows us to have more control over funding requirements, procurement procedures, quality of work, etc. that may reduce long term risks to the council.

Loss of funding opportunities due to the required timescales.

 

Loss of community interest due to the required timescales especially when funding has been secured and needs spending by a certain date.

 

The preferred option is option 1 as it enables the council to respond more quickly to securing funding for these relatively small scale community projects and the risks and consequences are considered manageable.

 

Councillor Hughes proposed, seconded by Councillor Pattison:-

 

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

 

Councillors then voted:-

 

Resolved unanimously:

 

(1)       That authority be delegated to the Chief Officer (Environment),  ...  view the full minutes text for item 37.

38.

Review of the Year 2016 - 2017 pdf icon PDF 220 KB

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Blamire)

 

Report of the Chief Executive

Additional documents:

Minutes:

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Blamire)

 

Cabinet received a report from the Chief Executive which provided an overview of the Council’s progress in 2016-17 towards the delivery of corporate plan priorities and outcomes as set out in the Corporate Plan 2016-2020.

 

No options were provided as the report was primarily for noting.

 

Councillor Blamire proposed, seconded by Councillor Warriner:-

 

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

 

Councillors then voted:-

 

Resolved unanimously:

 

(1)          That Cabinet notes the report which set out progress against the Corporate Plan 2016/2020 priorities.

 

Officer responsible for effecting the decision:

 

Chief Executive

 

Reasons for making the decision:

 

The report is a requirement of the Council’s Performance Management Framework in support of the delivery of key priorities and outcomes as set out in the overall policy framework and specifically the Corporate Plan 2016 - 2020.