Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Stuart Bateson, Abbott Bryning, Abi Mills, Rebecca Novell, Sylvia Rogerson, Susan Sykes, Peter Williamson and Phillippa Williamson.

To receive as a correct record the Minutes of the Meeting of the City Council held on 9th November, 2016 (previously circulated). 

The minutes of the meeting held on 9 November 2016 were signed by the Mayor as a correct record.

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. 

Members advised of the following interests at this stage:

Councillors Cozzler, Guilding and Scott declared prejudicial interests in Item 11 – Localised Council Tax Support Scheme and would leave the room for that item.  (Minute 75 refers).

The Mayor welcomed Councillor Nathan Burns to his first Council meeting since being elected to represent the University & Scotforth Rural Ward in the by-election held on 8th December 2016. 

The Mayor thanked those, especially Councillors and staff of the Royal Lancaster Infirmary, who had donated to or attended the Christmas Bash which had raised almost £1600 for the Mayor’s charity.

The Mayor advised that he intended to re-order the agenda with item 9, the motion on the Bus Services Bill being moved to the end of the agenda.

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 no questions had been received from members of the public in accordance with the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 11.

The Mayor informed Members that no petitions or requests to address Council had been received from members of the public.

The Leader presented her report updating Members on various issues since her last report to Council. She then responded to a number of questions from Councillors.

To consider the report of the Chief Officer (Regeneration and Planning)

Councillors please note: Appendices 1 and 2 of this report and the policy maps are published electronically and can be found on the Council website at:

https://committeeadmin.lancaster.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=305&MId=6692&Ver=4

Paper copies will be available in the Members’ Rooms at Morecambe and Lancaster Town Halls. If you require your own paper copy please contact Democratic Services on 582132.

The Chief Officer (Regeneration & Planning) submitted a report which sought a resolution from Council to undertake public consultation on the Strategic Policies and Land Allocations Development Plan Document and Review of the Development Management Development Plan Document.  This would enable progress to be made on the preparation of a Local Plan for Lancaster District. 

The Chief Officer (Regeneration & Planning) and the Planning and Housing Policy Manager responded to a number of questions.

Councillor Hanson proposed, Councillor Brayshaw seconded:

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

After a short debate a vote was taken on the proposition which was carried unanimously.

Resolved:

(1)          That public consultation be undertaken on the Strategic Policies & Land Allocations Development Plan Document and Review of the Development Management Development Plan Document. 

(2)          That background evidence and supporting material be published, including the consultants’ interim reports on the Sustainability Appraisal and Habitats Regulations Assessment.

(3)          That the authority to make minor changes to improve the clarity and internal consistency of the Draft Documents, prior to the intended period of public consultation, provisionally from Friday 27^th January to Friday 24^th March 2017, be delegated to the Chief Officer (Regeneration and Planning).

To consider the report of the Chief Officer (Resources)

Councillors Cozler, Guilding and Scott having previously declared a personal interest in the following item left the meeting at this point.

The Chief Officer (Resources) submitted a report which sought a decision from Council on the Localised Council Tax Support (LCTS) scheme for 2017/18.  Members asked questions and the Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility for Finance and Revenues & Benefits and the Chief Officer (Resources) responded.

It was proposed by Councillor Whitehead and seconded by Councillor Metcalfe:

(1)             ThatCouncil amends its Localised Council Tax Support Scheme for 2017/18 for minor changes to entitlement by:

-        removing the Work Related Activity Component; and

-        removing the Severe Disability Entitlement

but with the scheme retaining the provisions for allowing claimants to be absent from Great Britain for a period of 13 weeks, and not restricting the number of dependent children to 2.

(2)             That the ChiefOfficer(Resources)beauthorisedtofinaliseandpublishthe Council’s approved Schemefor2017/18 in line with (1) aboveandmakeallothernecessaryarrangementsfor itsimplementationinnextfinancialyear.

After a short debate 33 Members voted in favour of the proposition, 13 against and 2 abstained, whereupon the Mayor declared the proposition to be carried.

Councillors Cozler, Guilding and Scott returned to the meeting at this point.

To consider the report of the Chief Officer (Health & Housing)

The Chief Officer (Health & Housing) submitted a report to update Members on progress with the potential asset transfer of the community pools, and responded to several questions from Members.

Councillor Cooper proposed, seconded by Councillor Mace:

"That if the schools are committed to taking on the pools but need more time to finalise arrangements, the Council will support the continuation of operation of the pools beyond April 2017, for a limited period, and Cabinet is requested to incorporate this into the budget proposals for 2017/2018."

By way of an amendment, which was accepted as a friendly amendment by Councillors Cooper and Mace, Councillor Clifford proposed that the words ‘and there is a potential viable business case’, be inserted after ‘taking on the pools’.

There was no debate and on being put to the vote Members voted unanimously in favour of the proposition, as amended.

Resolved:

(1)          That if the schools are committed to taking on the pools and there is a potential viable business case, but need more time to finalise arrangements, the Council will support the continuation of operation of the pools beyond April 2017, for a limited period, and Cabinet is requested to incorporate this into the budget proposals for 2017/2018.

To appoint a Mayor Elect to be put forward for election by the City Council in May 2017, for the municipal year 2017/18.

The Chief Executive advised that she had contacted Councillor Geoff Knight, being the most senior Member of the Council in accordance with the Constitution.  He had indicated to her that he did not feel able to accept an invitation to be Mayor due to other commitments.  That being the case, she had then contacted Councillor Roger Mace, the next most senior Member who had indicated that he would be happy to accept the office of Mayor if offered, by the Council.

It was then moved by Councillor Thomas and seconded by Councillor Leytham:

“That Councillor Roger Mace be invited to hold the office of Mayor of the City of Lancaster for the Municipal Year 2017/18.”

A vote was taken on the motion which was carried unanimously.

Resolved:

(1)          That Councillor Roger Mace be invited to hold the office of Mayor of the City of Lancaster for the Municipal Year 2017/18.

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 4 questions had been received by the Chief Executive in accordance with Council Procedure Rules as follows:

(1)  Councillor Hamilton-Cox to Councillor Blamire regarding devolution and the Lancashire combined authority

(2)  Councillor Hamilton-Cox to Councillor Whitehead regarding ‘community wealth building’

(3)  Councillor Caroline Jackson to Councillor Hanson regarding empty stores on Market Square

(4)  Councillor Caroline Jackson to Councillor Clifford regarding Quay Meadows

Details of the questions and answers together with any supplementary questions and responses are appended to the minutes.

The meeting adjourned at 8.35pm and reconvened at 8.45pm.

To receive the Minutes of Meeting of Cabinet held on 2^nd November, 2016. 

Council considered the Cabinet minutes of the meeting held on 2^nd November 2016. The Leader and Chief Officer (Resources) responded to Members’ questions.

Resolved:

(1)          That the minutes be noted.

To consider the following motion submitted by Councillors Ronnie Kershaw, Carla Brayshaw, Rob Devey and John Reynolds:-

This council notes:

1.           That the Bus Services Bill currently passing through Parliament includes Clause 21 that will effectively “prohibit a local authority from forming a company for the purposes of providing a local bus service”.

2.           That the Localism Act (2011) provides general powers of competence to local authorities.

3.           That municipal bus companies like Reading and Nottingham provide some of the best bus services in the country and have a successful track record of increasing bus passenger numbers and providing high quality bus services.

4.           That polling by We Own It found that a majority of the public (57%) oppose clause 21, whilst just 22% support it. The opposition to Clause 21 is consistent across voters from all political parties.

This council believes:

1.               Clause 21 contradicts the general powers of competence and the spirit of the Localism Act 2011.

2.               If there is a need and a demand from their public, then Councils should be able to provide their own bus services. 

3.               Should they wish, Councils should be legally able to follow the model developed by Reading and Nottingham.

4.               Consequently Clause 21 should be omitted from the Bus Services Bill.

 This council resolves:

1.           To write to Lord Ahmad and to call on the Department for Transport to omit Clause 21 from the final legislation.

2.           To write to local MPs Cat Smith and David Morris to ask them to oppose clause 21 when the Bus Services Bill reaches the House of Commons and ask them to write to Lord Ahmad and the Department of Transport to raise concerns about Clause 21.

3.           To work with any organisations such as We Own It to publicise our opposition to clause 21 in local media.

An officer briefing note is attached.

The following motion of which notice had been given to the Chief Executive in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 15 was moved by Councillor Kershaw and seconded by Councillor Reynolds:

This council notes:

1.           That the Bus Services Bill currently passing through Parliament includes Clause 21 that will effectively “prohibit a local authority from forming a company for the purposes of providing a local bus service”.

2.           That the Localism Act (2011) provides general powers of competence to local authorities.

3.           That municipal bus companies like Reading and Nottingham provide some of the best bus services in the country and have a successful track record of increasing bus passenger numbers and providing high quality bus services.

4.           That polling by We Own It found that a majority of the public (57%) oppose clause 21, whilst just 22% support it. The opposition to Clause 21 is consistent across voters from all political parties.

This council believes:

1.               Clause 21 contradicts the general powers of competence and the spirit of the Localism Act 2011.

2.               If there is a need and a demand from their public, then Councils should be able to provide their own bus services. 

3.               Should they wish, Councils should be legally able to follow the model developed by Reading and Nottingham.

4.               Consequently Clause 21 should be omitted from the Bus Services Bill.

 This council resolves:

1.           To write to Lord Ahmad and to call on the Department for Transport to omit Clause 21 from the final legislation.

2.           To write to local MPs Cat Smith and David Morris to ask them to oppose clause 21 when the Bus Services Bill reaches the House of Commons and ask them to write to Lord Ahmad and the Department of Transport to raise concerns about Clause 21.

3.           To work with any organisations such as We Own It to publicise our opposition to clause 21 in local media.

An officer briefing note was provided with the agenda to assist Councillors.

After a short debate Members voted on the motion.  34 Members voted in favour and 11 abstained, whereupon the Mayor declared the motion to be carried.

Resolved:

This council notes:

1.           That the Bus Services Bill currently passing through Parliament includes Clause 21 that will effectively “prohibit a local authority from forming a company for the purposes of providing a local bus service”.

2.           That the Localism Act (2011) provides general powers of competence to local authorities.

3.           That municipal bus companies like Reading and Nottingham provide some of the best bus services in the country and have a successful track record of increasing bus passenger numbers and providing high quality bus services.

4.           That polling by We Own It found that a majority of the public (57%) oppose clause 21, whilst just 22% support it. The opposition to Clause 21 is consistent across voters from all political parties.

This council believes:

1.           Clause 21 contradicts the general powers of competence and the spirit of the  Localism Act 2011.

2.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 80.