Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors June Ashworth, Charlie Edwards, Christopher Leadbetter, Jane Parkinson, Nick Wilkinson and Paul Woodruff.

To receive as a correct record the Minutes of the Meetings of the City Council held on 15 July 2015 (previously circulated). 

The minutes of the meetings held on 15 July 2015 were signed by the Mayor as a correct record.

Members advised of the following interests at this stage:

Councillors Brayshaw and Whitaker declared a personal interest in relation to the item on Appointments to Outside Bodies in view of their council appointments to the North Lancashire Citizens Advice Bureau.  (Minute No. 52 refers.)

Councillors Clifford, Newman-Thompson, Hanson and Charles all declared an interest in relation to the motion on Fracking, as members of Lancashire County Council, and would leave the meeting for that item.  (Minute No. 56 refers.)

Councillor Rogerson declared a personal interest in relation to the item on Appointments to Outside Bodies in view of her council appointment to the North Lancashire Citizens Advice Bureau.  (Minute No. 52 refers.)

Councillor Biddulph declared a personal interest in relation to the Canal Corridor motion in view of his involvement with the Grand Theatre. (Minute No. 57 refers.)

The Mayor announced that, in view of the number of motions on the agenda, he intended to re-order the items to take 15 and 16 after item 8. He also intended to curtail the meeting after four hours, at 10pm. Re-ordering the agenda would ensure that all reports for decision would be dealt with before the end of the meeting. Any motions remaining would be deferred to the next meeting to be dealt with first.

Councillors were informed that the Mayor’s sponsored bike ride of 81 miles from Barrow to Glasson had raised £5,000 for St John’s hospice. The Mayor thanked everyone for their participation and support.

To receive questions in accordance with the provisions of Council Procedure Rules 11.1 and 11.3 which require members of the public to give at least 3 days’ notice in writing of questions to a Member of Cabinet or Committee Chairman. 

The Mayor advised that one question had been received from a member of the public, Mr Adam Hanlon, in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 11.  He invited Mr Hanlon to put his question to Councillor Smith.

A copy of the question had been circulated at the commencement of the meeting.

Details of Mr Hanlon’s question and the response from Councillor Smith, together with a supplementary question and answer, are appended to the minutes.

To receive a Petition and Address from Mr Nick Ward, Chairman of Over Kellet Parish Council, notification of which has been received by the Chief Executive. 

The petition contains fewer than 1500 signatures and relates to a matter affecting all rural wards in the district. Therefore, in accordance with the Petition Scheme in the Council’s Constitution, the petition would not qualify for debate by Council, but would be referred to Cabinet. However, there is a related motion on the agenda of this meeting for debate (please see Item 12).

Mr Nick Ward formally presented a petition and addressed Council in accordance with the provisions of the Council’s Petition Scheme and Council Procedure Rule 13. The wording of the petition was as follows:

“We are residents of villages in the Halton and Kellet Wards of Lancaster District. Our villages are rural in character and have been sustained as communities separate from the urban centre of Lancaster - in some cases for over one thousand years.

Under the section headed "Improving the Rural Environment", in the Lancaster City Council Planning Handbook 2000, published by Burrows Communications Ltd., it says "In responding to pressures for new development the City Council will look to guard against inappropriate change and protect the character of villages". We are unaware of any change to this commitment by the City Council.

We expect the City Council to;

• safeguard the sense of identity of village communities
• protect and enhance the social, economic, and environmental sustainability required by current and future rural residents
• respect the visual amenity associated with the landscapes surrounding rural settlements
• conserve the quality and character of village landscapes and the setting of  rural villages
• recognise that landscape containing green spaces is an irreplaceable community asset
• ensure that local rural opinion informs City Council decisions that have an impact on local village communities
• promote city coast and countryside - without sidelining the countryside

We observe recent symptoms of neglect of the rural voice locally, in that;

• the executive of this Council does not include elected representatives from rural wards in the District, and
• unlike the situation in 2005, there is no longer a Cabinet member with a portfolio for "Rural Affairs" and
• recent new brand identities for Lancaster and for Morecambe make no reference to the countryside of the District
• there is no adequate forum in which issues of major importance to rural communities, such as the preparation of the Local Plan, can be properly debated.

We (the undersigned) are concerned at the symptoms of neglect of the rural voice locally as set out above, and we call upon Lancaster City Council

• to resolve to work with the Parish and Town Councils in the District and fully recognise their contributions in preserving the distinctiveness and aspirations of our local communities and
• to set up a working group with Council Officers and representatives of rural parishes and of the City Council to enable rural views to inform the process of preparing component documents in the Local Plan”

The Mayor explained that the petition did not contain the 1500 signatures required to trigger a Council debate and it would be usual at this point to refer the petition to Cabinet. However, a motion related to the petition had been placed on the agenda (minute 51 refers). In view of this, the Mayor thanked Mr Ward for attending Council and invited him to stay and listen to the debate on the related motion.

The Leader presented her report updating Members on various issues since her last report to Council. She offered to provide a written response to a question from Councillor Mace regarding the new agreement for the Museum.

Resolved:

That the report be noted. 

To consider the report of the Monitoring Officer.

Council considered a report of the Monitoring Officer, seeking approval to revised terms of reference for the Audit Committee. The revisions were necessary to reflect changes in legislation and had been accepted and recommended to Council for adoption by the Audit Committee at its meeting on 17 June 2015.

Councillor Mann proposed, seconded by Councillor Whitaker:

“That the proposed revisions to the Audit Committee’s terms of reference, set out in Appendix A of the report, be approved.”

Councillor Peter Williamson, seconded by Councillor Gardiner, proposed an amendment in the form of an addendum:

“That the size of the Committee be increased from seven members to nine members.”

Debate followed on the amendment before a vote was taken. With 21 Members in favour, 29 against and two abstentions, the amendment was lost.

A vote was then taken on the substantive motion, which was clearly carried.

Resolved:

That the proposed revisions to the Audit Committee’s terms of reference, set out in Appendix A of the report, be approved.

To consider the report of the Chief Officer (Governance)

Council considered a report submitted by the Chief Officer (Governance). The report noted that two vacancies had arisen on outside bodies. These were the Council’s appointments to the Reserve Forces and Cadets Association for North West England and the Isle of Man and to the North Lancashire Citizens Advice Bureau (NLCAB). The basis of appointment to both vacancies had previously been by nomination and appointment at Council. The report also asked Council to consider a request from the trustees of the James Bond/Henry Welch Trust for nomination of a councillor to be appointed as a trustee.

The Mayor called for a proposition regarding the Reserve Forces and Cadets Association first.

Proposing that the basis of appointment remain by nomination and appointment at full Council, Councillor Leyshon nominated Councillor Bryning, seconded by Councillor Clifford. Councillor Peter Williamson nominated Councillor Gardiner, seconded by Councillor Joan Jackson. There were 29 votes for Councillor Bryning and 14 votes for Councillor Gardiner, and the Mayor declared Councillor Bryning appointed.

Nominations were then taken for the vacancy on the NLCAB.

Councillor Leyshon nominated Councillor Biddulph, seconded by Councillor Clifford and Councillor Peter Williamson nominated Councillor Parkinson, seconded by Councillor Charles. There were 30 votes for Councillor Biddulph and 17 votes for Councillor Parkinson, and the Mayor declared Councillor Biddulph appointed.

Regarding the request from the James Bond/Henry Welch trustees, Councillor Leyshon proposed that the basis of appointment remain by nomination and appointment at full Council, and that Councillor Brown be nominated. The proposition was seconded by Councillor Clifford.

Councillor Peter Williamson nominated Councillor Guilding, seconded by Councillor Charles. Councillor Brown received 29 votes and Councillor Guilding received 14 votes. Councillor Brown was appointed. The Mayor noted that the appointment was subject to confirmation by the trustees at their October meeting.

Resolved:

(1)          That Councillor Bryning be appointed to the Reserve Forces and Cadets Association for North West England and the Isle of Man.

(2)          That Councillor Biddulph be appointed to the NLCAB.

(3)          That, subject to confirmation by the trustees at their October meeting, Councillor Brown be the Council’s appointment as a trustee to the James Bond/Henry Welch Trust.

To consider the following motion submitted by Councillors Karen Leytham,

Janet Hall, Colin Hartley, Ronnie Kershaw and Richard Newman-Thompson:

“There is a growing demand and insufficient provision of social and council housing for rent in the Lancaster District and the Right To Buy scheme in its current format presents difficulties to Lancaster City Council to provide new appropriate housing on a replacement basis when a dwelling is sold, so:

Lancaster City Council proposes the following:

·         That our Government follows the leadership of the Scottish Government in reversing the Right To Buy scheme for council houses.

·         That the proposal to extend the Right To Buy scheme to housing associations be abolished.

·         That the proposal to manage welfare spending by controlling council house rents be abolished as this goes against the move in 2012 to relinquish central government control and allow councils more freedom to manage their housing portfolios.

·         That the Chief Executive of Lancaster City Council sends this resolution to the Secretary and Shadow Secretary of State for DCLG, the Housing and Shadow Housing Minister, the district’s 2 MP’s, housing associations that operate in our district, Lancashire County Council and all Lancashire councils.”

An officer briefing note is attached on pages 9 and 10.

Councillor Leytham had submitted the following motion having given the required notice to the Chief Executive in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 15:-

“There is a growing demand and insufficient provision of social and council housing for rent in the Lancaster District and the Right To Buy scheme in its current format presents difficulties to Lancaster City Council to provide new appropriate housing on a replacement basis when a dwelling is sold, so:

Lancaster City Council proposes the following:

·        That our Government follows the leadership of the Scottish Government in reversing the Right To Buy scheme for council houses.

·        That the proposal to extend the Right To Buy scheme to housing associations be abolished.

·        That the proposal to manage welfare spending by controlling council house rents be abolished as this goes against the move in 2012 to relinquish central government control and allow councils more freedom to manage their housing portfolios.

·        That the Chief Executive of Lancaster City Council sends this resolution to the Secretary and Shadow Secretary of State for DCLG, the Housing and Shadow Housing Minister, the district’s 2 MP’s, housing associations that operate in our district, Lancashire County Council and all Lancashire councils.”

Background information regarding the district’s housing stock and the right to buy had been provided with the agenda to assist Councillors. The Chief Officer (Health and Housing) responded to Members’ questions on the briefing note.

Councillor Leytham moved the motion, seconded by Councillor Hall. After a lengthy debate, a vote was taken and the motion was clearly carried.

Resolved:-

There is a growing demand and insufficient provision of social and council housing for rent in the Lancaster District and the Right To Buy scheme in its current format presents difficulties to Lancaster City Council to provide new appropriate housing on a replacement basis when a dwelling is sold, so:

Lancaster City Council proposes the following:

·        That our Government follows the leadership of the Scottish Government in reversing the Right To Buy scheme for council houses.

·        That the proposal to extend the Right To Buy scheme to housing associations be abolished.

·        That the proposal to manage welfare spending by controlling council house rents be abolished as this goes against the move in 2012 to relinquish central government control and allow councils more freedom to manage their housing portfolios.

·        That the Chief Executive of Lancaster City Council sends this resolution to the Secretary and Shadow Secretary of State for DCLG, the Housing and Shadow Housing Minister, the district’s 2 MP’s, housing associations that operate in our district, Lancashire County Council and all Lancashire councils.

To consider the following motion submitted by Councillors Rebecca Novell and Sam Armstrong.

“This Council notes that:

Conflicts in the Middle East and Africa are driving men, women and children in their millions to seek safety in the West. 

This summer has seen the largest displacement of people since the Second World War. In July, more than 100,000 individuals crossed into European Union countries - a record figure.

Thousands of people have died this year alone, trying to cross the Mediterranean sea; many of them were children.

Responding to the movement of so many desperate people is not straightforward. Yet it is clear that many of Europe’s existing policies are inadequate.

A large number of refugees can become much less daunting to the public and less of a drain on resources if each and every county and borough council agrees to house refugee families. 10 families per authority would house approximately 10,000 families.

This Council believes:

• We have a duty to prevent the deaths of innocent people seeking refuge;
• That this crisis will be better managed if incoming refugees are accommodated around the whole country;
• The UK must welcome its fair share of refugees to ease this crisis.

This Council resolves to:

·         Call on the Government to work with Europe in order to establish and accept Britain’s fair share of refugees fleeing war-torn countries.

• Call on the Government to allocate resources to Local Councils so that they may accommodate and integrate refugees in to the local community.
• Commit to ensuring that refugees are welcomed in this district and help facilitate this process in Lancaster, by working with local services to ensure housing, legal advice, trauma-recovery support and careers advice, amongst other things.

·         Formally express interest in both the UN Gateway Programme and the Government’s VPR to the Home Office by 1st November 2015.”

An officer briefing note is attached on pages 11 and 12.

The following motion, of which notice had been given to the Chief Executive in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 15, had been submitted by Councillor Novell:-

“This Council notes that:

Conflicts in the Middle East and Africa are driving men, women and children in their millions to seek safety in the West. 

This summer has seen the largest displacement of people since the Second World War. In July, more than 100,000 individuals crossed into European Union countries - a record figure.

Thousands of people have died this year alone, trying to cross the Mediterranean sea; many of them were children.

Responding to the movement of so many desperate people is not straightforward. Yet it is clear that many of Europe’s existing policies are inadequate.

A large number of refugees can become much less daunting to the public and less of a drain on resources if each and every county and borough council agrees to house refugee families. 10 families per authority would house approximately 10,000 families.

This Council believes:

• We have a duty to prevent the deaths of innocent people seeking refuge;
• That this crisis will be better managed if incoming refugees are accommodated around the whole country;
• That the UK must welcome its fair share of refugees to ease this crisis.

This Council resolves to:

·        Call on the Government to work with Europe in order to establish and accept Britain’s fair share of refugees fleeing war-torn countries.

• Call on the Government to allocate resources to Local Councils so that they may accommodate and integrate refugees in to the local community.
• Commit to ensuring that refugees are welcomed in this district and help facilitate this process in Lancaster, by working with local services to ensure housing, legal advice, trauma-recovery support and careers advice, amongst other things.

·        Formally express interest in both the UN Gateway Programme and the Government’s VPR to the Home Office by 1st November 2015.”

An officer briefing note with relevant information to aid the debate had been included on the agenda and the Chief Officer (Health and Housing) responded to Members’ questions. 

An amendment to the motion was moved by Councillor Peter Williamson and seconded by Councillor Gardiner:-

“This council notes that the conflicts in the Middle East and Africa are driving men, women and children to seek safety elsewhere and supports the joint statement from Councillor Eileen Blamire, Leader of the Council, and Mark Cullinan, Chief Executive, made on 7 September 2015 following the announcement by the Prime Minister that the UK will accept 20,000 Syrian refugees between now and 2020:

We understand that the government will provide financial support from the international aid budget. The council awaits further details on how this will be administered and the number of refugees the district may be asked to accommodate.

It is, of course, essential that the solution is sustainable and funding is made available in the long term to ensure that those resettled, along with our communities, have the support and resources they need  ...  view the full minutes text for item 54.

To consider the following motion submitted by Councillors Roger Mace and Mel Guilding.

“We are residents of villages in the Halton and Kellet Wards of Lancaster District. Our villages are rural in character and have been sustained as communities separate from the urban centre of Lancaster - in some cases for over one thousand years.

Under the section headed "Improving the Rural Environment", in the Lancaster City Council Planning Handbook 2000, published by Burrows Communications Ltd., it says "In responding to pressures for new development the City Council will look to guard against inappropriate change and protect the character of villages". We are unaware of any change to this commitment by the City Council.

We expect the City Council to;

• safeguard the sense of identity of village communities
• protect and enhance the social, economic, and environmental sustainability required by current and future rural residents
• respect the visual amenity associated with the landscapes surrounding rural settlements
• conserve the quality and character of village landscapes and the setting of  rural villages
• recognise that landscape containing green spaces is an irreplaceable community asset
• ensure that local rural opinion informs City Council decisions that have an impact on local village communities
• promote city coast and countryside - without sidelining the countryside

We observe recent symptoms of neglect of the rural voice locally, in that;

• the executive of this Council does not include elected representatives from rural wards in the District, and
• unlike the situation in 2005, there is no longer a Cabinet member with a portfolio for "Rural Affairs" and
• recent new brand identities for Lancaster and for Morecambe make no reference to the countryside of the District
• there is no adequate forum in which issues of major importance to rural communities, such as the preparation of the Local Plan, can be properly debated.

PETITION

We (the undersigned) are concerned at the symptoms of neglect of the rural voice locally as set out on the attached sheet, and we call upon Lancaster City Council

• to resolve to work with the Parish and Town Councils in the District and fully recognise their contributions in preserving the distinctiveness and aspirations of our local communities and
• to set up a working group with Council Officers and representatives of rural parishes and of the City Council to enable rural views to inform the process of preparing component documents in the Local Plan

MOTION

In view of the content of the above petition, which has been submitted to the Council with some 360 signatures from residents in Kellet and Halton Wards, and the concerns at the symptoms of neglect of the rural voice as set out by the petitioners in the sheet accompanying the petition, this Council resolves

• to work with the Parish and Town Councils in the District and fully recognise their contributions in preserving the distinctiveness and aspirations of our local communities and;
• to set up a working group with Council Officers and representatives of rural parishes and of the City Council to enable rural  ...  view the full agenda text for item 55.

The following motion of which notice had been given to the Chief Executive in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 15 was moved by Councillor Mace and seconded by Councillor Guilding. The motion is set out in full as it was shown on the agenda:-

“We are residents of villages in the Halton and Kellet Wards of Lancaster District. Our villages are rural in character and have been sustained as communities separate from the urban centre of Lancaster - in some cases for over one thousand years.

Under the section headed "Improving the Rural Environment", in the Lancaster City Council Planning Handbook 2000, published by Burrows Communications Ltd., it says "In responding to pressures for new development the City Council will look to guard against inappropriate change and protect the character of villages". We are unaware of any change to this commitment by the City Council.

We expect the City Council to:

• safeguard the sense of identity of village communities
• protect and enhance the social, economic, and environmental sustainability required by current and future rural residents
• respect the visual amenity associated with the landscapes surrounding rural settlements
• conserve the quality and character of village landscapes and the setting of  rural villages
• recognise that landscape containing green spaces is an irreplaceable community asset
• ensure that local rural opinion informs City Council decisions that have an impact on local village communities
• promote city coast and countryside - without sidelining the countryside

We observe recent symptoms of neglect of the rural voice locally, in that:

• the executive of this Council does not include elected representatives from rural wards in the District, and
• unlike the situation in 2005, there is no longer a Cabinet member with a portfolio for "Rural Affairs" and
• recent new brand identities for Lancaster and for Morecambe make no reference to the countryside of the District
• there is no adequate forum in which issues of major importance to rural communities, such as the preparation of the Local Plan, can be properly debated.

Petition

We (the undersigned) are concerned at the symptoms of neglect of the rural voice locally as set out on the attached sheet, and we call upon Lancaster City Council

• to resolve to work with the Parish and Town Councils in the District and fully recognise their contributions in preserving the distinctiveness and aspirations of our local communities and
• to set up a working group with Council Officers and representatives of rural parishes and of the City Council to enable rural views to inform the process of preparing component documents in the Local Plan

Motion

In view of the content of the petition (minute 49 refers), which has been submitted to the Council with some 360 signatures from residents in Kellet and Halton Wards, and the concerns at the symptoms of neglect of the rural voice as set out by the petitioners in the sheet accompanying the petition, this Council resolves

• to work with the Parish and Town Councils in the District and fully recognise their contributions  ...  view the full minutes text for item 55.

To consider the following motion submitted by Cllr Rob Devey, Darren Clifford, Claire Cozler and Janet Hall:

“Lancaster City Council notes the ongoing consultation which ends on September 29 and could result in licences being granted for oil and gas exploration which could involve fracking in the south of our district.  We also note the recent report published by Preston City Council into the process and that council’s subsequent resolution.  While we would always respond as a consultee to any individual planning application on a case by case basis on planning grounds and carefully weigh up its merits, we believe considerations when it comes to fracking go above and beyond pure planning grounds.  Therefore, this council agrees to:

a) Oppose fracking in the Lancaster district, or fracking outside our district which could affect residents within our district, and call upon the Government to re-consider its policy of encouraging fracking because:

·         This council considers the focus across the country ought to be on developing sustainable sources of clean renewable energy, especially including tidal energy given that we are an island, but also including off-shore windfarms, solar power and kinetic energy generated by the movements of people and vehicles.

·         This council considers that fracking has the potential to spoil our countryside and adversely affect wildlife and habitat.

·         This council has doubts as to the safety and impact of the process for reasons including the earthquakes caused by recent fracking investigation works in Lancashire, the release of significant quantities of methane gas and, as recently evidenced in a major study by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, impacts on the integrity of drinking water supplies. 

b) Urge the Government to scrap proposals to remove responsibility for determining fracking planning applications from local councils (in our area Lancashire County Council) if they are not determined within a 16-week period, and recognise that these are sensitive proposals which should be judged locally and which, if anything, need more time for consideration and public consultation, not less.

This motion should be sent in writing to the Department for Energy and Climate Change and the Oil and Gas Authority as part of the ongoing consultation, which ends on September 29, but also to the relevant secretaries of state at the Department for the Environment Food and Rural Affairs and the Department for Communities and Local Government.”

An officer briefing note is attached on pages 17 and 18.

Councillor Charles, Clifford, Hanson and Newman-Thompson left the meeting at this point, having previously declared an interest as Lancashire County Councillors.

Councillor Devey proposed the following motion having given the required notice to the Chief Executive in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 15:-

“Lancaster City Council notes the ongoing consultation which ends on September 29 and could result in licences being granted for oil and gas exploration which could involve fracking in the south of our district.  We also note the recent report published by Preston City Council into the process and that council’s subsequent resolution.  While we would always respond as a consultee to any individual planning application on a case by case basis on planning grounds and carefully weigh up its merits, we believe considerations when it comes to fracking go above and beyond pure planning grounds.  Therefore, this council agrees to:

a)           Oppose fracking in the Lancaster district, or fracking outside our district which could affect residents within our district, and call upon the Government to re-consider its policy of encouraging fracking because:

·        This council considers the focus across the country ought to be on developing sustainable sources of clean renewable energy, especially including tidal energy given that we are an island, but also including off-shore windfarms, solar power and kinetic energy generated by the movements of people and vehicles.

·        This council considers that fracking has the potential to spoil our countryside and adversely affect wildlife and habitat.

·        This council has doubts as to the safety and impact of the process for reasons including the earthquakes caused by recent fracking investigation works in Lancashire, the release of significant quantities of methane gas and, as recently evidenced in a major study by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, impacts on the integrity of drinking water supplies. 

b)           Urge the Government to scrap proposals to remove responsibility for determining fracking planning applications from local councils (in our area Lancashire County Council) if they are not determined within a 16-week period, and recognise that these are sensitive proposals which should be judged locally and which, if anything, need more time for consideration and public consultation, not less.

This motion should be sent in writing to the Department for Energy and Climate Change and the Oil and Gas Authority as part of the ongoing consultation, which ends on September 29, but also to the relevant secretaries of state at the Department for the Environment Food and Rural Affairs and the Department for Communities and Local Government.”

Councillor Cozler seconded the motion.

An officer briefing note accompanied the motion.

At the conclusion of a lengthy debate a vote was taken and the motion was clearly carried with 35 members voting for the motion, 6 against and 6 abstentions.

Resolved:-

Lancaster City Council notes the ongoing consultation which ends on September 29 and could result in licences being granted for oil and gas exploration which could involve fracking in the south of our district.  We also note the recent report published by Preston  ...  view the full minutes text for item 56.

To consider the following motion submitted by Cllrs Tim Hamilton-Cox, Caroline Jackson and Dave Brookes:

“This council notes the question from Cllr Williamson at July full council, and the response from Cllr Hanson, reproduced below.

'Question from Councillor Peter Williamson to Councillor Hanson
Has the exclusive development agreement with British Land concerning the Canal Corridor development now expired?
Councillor Hanson responded to say that the development agreement had not expired. However, because the developer had not submitted a planning application by the 21st November 2014, either the Council or the developer was entitled to give written notice to terminate the agreement. No such notice had yet been given by either party.'

Full council further notes that around half of councillors were not in office in July 2012 when full council approved the principle of a development agreement with British Land for the council's landholding in the Canal Corridor and gave delegated authority to the Chief Executive to complete the detail of the agreement.

Accordingly full council resolves that the Chief Executive be asked to prepare an options appraisal on the future use of the council's landholding in the Canal Corridor, including the option to withdraw from the development agreement in order to facilitate a housing-led regeneration of the Canal Corridor, and that the options appraisal be presented to October full council.”

An officer briefing note is attached on page 19.

The following motion of which notice had been given to the Chief Executive in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 15 was moved by Councillor Hamilton-Cox and seconded by Councillor Caroline Jackson:-

“This council notes the question from Cllr Williamson at July full council, and the response from Cllr Hanson, reproduced below:-

‘Question from Councillor Peter Williamson to Councillor Hanson:
Has the exclusive development agreement with British Land concerning the Canal Corridor development now expired?

Councillor Hanson responded to say that the development agreement had not expired. However, because the developer had not submitted a planning application by the 21st November 2014, either the Council or the developer was entitled to give written notice to terminate the agreement. No such notice had yet been given by either party.'

Full council further notes that around half of councillors were not in office in July 2012 when full council approved the principle of a development agreement with British Land for the council's landholding in the Canal Corridor and gave delegated authority to the Chief Executive to complete the detail of the agreement.

Accordingly full council resolves that the Chief Executive be asked to prepare an options appraisal on the future use of the council's landholding in the Canal Corridor, including the option to withdraw from the development agreement in order to facilitate a housing-led regeneration of the Canal Corridor, and that the options appraisal be presented to October full council.”

An officer briefing note with professional advice had been included with the agenda for Members’ information and the Chief Officer (Regeneration and Planning) responded to questions from Councillors.

An amendment to the motion was moved by Councillor Brookes, seconded by Councillor Gardiner and accepted as a friendly amendment by the mover and seconder of the motion:

“That the words “housing led” in the final paragraph of the motion be replaced with the word “alternative.”

During debate, it was noted that the most recent legal advice would be shared with Cabinet at its next meeting on 6 October 2015 and that group leaders would be invited to a briefing on the latest position.

At the conclusion of the debate a vote was taken and, with 19 Councillors voting for the motion, 30 against and one abstention, the motion was lost.

To receive questions in accordance with the provisions of Council Procedure Rules 12.2 and 12.4 which require a Member to give at least 3 working days’ notice, in writing, of the question to the Chief Executive. 

The Mayor advised that two questions had been received by the Chief Executive in accordance with Council Procedure Rules as follows:

Councillor Scott asked Councillor Leytham:

“Within the last 5 years, has the Council Housing Department identified and investigated any rented Council houses or flats that were sub-let?”

Councillor Leytham replied ‘no’.

Councillor Brown asked Councillor Hanson:

“Can the Cabinet Member tell council whether Lancaster City Council have bid for Costal Revival Fund monies from the Department for Communities and Local Government?”

Councillor Hanson replied ‘yes’.

As a supplementary question, Councillor Brown asked:

“What does the council intend to do with any funds for the improvement of Morecambe?”

Councillor Hanson explained that the aim would be to use any funds to implement a regeneration project to upgrade the former Dome area to make it more flexible for public use, and to improve its appearance.

To receive the Minutes of the meetings of Cabinet held on 4^th August and 1^st September 2015. 

Council considered the Cabinet minutes of the meeting held on 4 August and 1 September 2015. The Leader responded to Members’ questions.

Resolved:

That the minutes be noted.

To consider the following motion submitted by Cllrs Tim Hamilton-Cox, Dave Brookes and Caroline Jackson:

“This council notes the presumption of openness expressed in the council's constitution and that reasonable access to information underpins the ability of members to fulfil their duties effectively.

Council also notes the decision by officers following annual council to 'tighten up' on access to information, and that this represents, without reference to full council, a reduction in the scope of members' access to information prevailing in the previous administration (and before).

Council further notes the commentary by the Monitoring Officer in an email to Cllr Brookes dated 31st August (which was copied to the leader and chair of Overview and Scrutiny) that:

'...The legislation and the common law set out “rights” to information – rights which cannot be reduced.  However, my understanding is that if the Council wishes to make exempt Cabinet information available to B&PP members or indeed to all members, it can amend the constitution to allow this – there is nothing to stop it giving members access which goes beyond their legal rights. However, in widening access to such information Council would of course have to recognise that there would be a greater risk of it being passed on, resulting in possible breaches of confidentiality and of the Data Protection Act, and possible prejudice to the Council’s own business and financial interests.'

Weighing this commentary in the balance, this council resolves that:

1) All members should be able to attend all meetings of cabinet and committees for all agenda items as of right, except those involving exempt agenda items concerning individual employees of the council (other than chief officers and the Chief Executive) or individual members of the public;

2) All members should have access to all exempt papers as of right, with the exception of those exempt papers which deal with individual employees of the council (other than chief officers and the Chief Executive) or individual members of the public;

3) All members should have access to both exempt and confidential information on matters concerning their wards, as of right.

4) And that rights to access for members to exempt or confidential information carry proportionate responsibilities about its use.

Council requests that officers bring forward a report which enables the principles on access to information identified in resolutions 1-4 to be incorporated into the constitution and that the report is submitted to December full council for final decision by members.”

An officer briefing note is attached on pages 20 - 22.

In view of the lateness of the hour at this point, this item of business was deferred to the October meeting of Council.