Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Carla Brayshaw, Darren Clifford, Sheila Denwood, Oliver Robinson, Andrew Warriner and Nick Wilkinson.

To receive as a correct record the Minutes of the Meetings of the City Council held on 14th November 2018 (previously circulated). 

The minutes of the meetings held on 14 November 2018 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:

The Deputy Mayor, Councillor Cozler, reported that S.106 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 applied to her. Consequently, she would not be voting in any part of the meeting which related to the setting of the budget.

Councillor Barry declared an interest as a member of the Standards Committee in relation to the Committee’s report regarding an Investigation into Leaked Sensitive Information and Members’ Conduct (minute 92 refers). He would present the report as Vice-Chairman, answer any resulting questions, and propose the Committee’s recommendations but would not take part in the vote.

Councillors Whitaker, Brown, Hartley, Burns, Yates, Mace and Peter Williamson declared prejudicial interests as past or present members of the Standards Committee and would leave the meeting whilst the Committee’s report was discussed. (Minute 92 refers.)

Councillor Knight declared an interest in the motion on notice about Brexit as a member of the European Committee of the Regions. (Minute 100 refers.)

Councillors Parkinson, Rivet and Sykes declared disclosable pecuniary interests as private landlords in relation to the Empty Homes Charging Policy report.  (Minute 94 refers.)

Councillor Charles declared an interest in Planning in relation to the motion on notice about Climate Change Emissions From New Build Homes and would not take part in the debate or voting. (Minute 88 refers.)

The Mayor reported the sad death of former Councillor John Harrison, who passed away peacefully at the Royal Lancaster Infirmary on 3 December 2018.

John was elected in the late 1990s and served for almost 15 years until May 2015.  His funeral would take place on Friday 21 December at 10am at St Joseph’s RC Church in Skerton, followed by burial at Dalton Woodland Burial Ground in Burton-in-Kendal.

Members stood in a minute’s silence in his memory.

The Mayor asked Councillors to spare a few moments to complete an online survey being circulated about the Investment Strategy.

Regarding the agenda, the Mayor explained that, because there were a number of items to deal with, he intended to keep to the 45 minute timescale set out in Council Procedure Rule 15.5 for debating the motions on notice. He also reserved the right to re-order items, depending on speed of progress, to ensure that all reports which required a decision that evening would be dealt with.

Finally, the Mayor explained that he would be bringing forward the Report of the Independent Remuneration Panel to be dealt with following item 6. This was to allow Panel member Harsha Shukla MBE, who was in attendance, to present the report at the earliest opportunity.

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 in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 11.  He invited Ms Janet Taylor to put her question to Councillor Hanson, portfolio holder for Regeneration and Planning.

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

Lune Valley Flood Forum see that it is now more important than ever to have flooding expertise within many areas of the Council. When recruiting for new posts in regeneration and planning will this include qualifications and expertise in Flooding and Flood Mitigation?

Councillor Hanson thanked Ms Taylor for her question and responded:

When recruiting for specific roles in the Regeneration and Planning areas, the Council will always consider the relevant skills and experience required before finalising and placing adverts. Roles within our Regeneration and Planning areas will ordinarily cover a number of specialisms rather than one, and so we would ask for expertise across a wider remit than flooding alone.  Whilst we acknowledge that internal expertise in flooding and flood mitigation would be of benefit to the Council, where that expertise is not available the Council will look for advice and support from external specialists in the first instance.  It is also of note that the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) for the Lancaster District is not the City Council, but is Lancashire County Council, and Officers will often work with the LLFA and the Environment Agency when assessing flood mitigation or flooding impacts.

The Mayor thanked Ms Taylor for attending the meeting to ask her question.  .

To consider the report of the Chief Executive

Mrs Harsha Shukla MBE presented the findings and recommendations of the Independent Remuneration Panel’s recent review of the Members’ Allowances Scheme.

Councillor Peter Williamson thanked Mrs Shukla for the work that she and the other Panel members had put into their review and resulting report.

Councillor Whitehead, seconded by Councillor Hanson, proposed that:

“(1)      All the recommendations of the IRP be approved.

(2)       Recommendations a) to e) and recommendation g), as set out in the report, be incorporated into The Members’ Allowances Scheme to come into effect following the City Council’s Elections in May 2019.”

There was a short debate, followed by a vote on the proposal, which was clearly carried.

Resolved:

That:

(1)       All the recommendations of the IRP be approved.

(2)       Recommendations a) to e) and recommendation g), as set out in the report (and below), be incorporated into The Members’ Allowances Scheme to come into effect following the City Council’s Elections in May 2019.

a)            The broadband allowance, of £173.88 (£14.49 per month), be incorporated into the basic allowance and the scheme amended accordingly, as set out in the IRP report.

b)            The basic allowance of £3,557.38, (current basic allowance of £3,383.50 plus £173.88 broadband allowance) be increased by 2%, to match the Local Government Pay Award of 2% awarded to Council employees in 2018. This will give a new basic allowance of £3,628.53, to take effect following the local elections to the city council in 2019.

c)            The basic allowance be increased, year on year, in line with Employee Pay Awards, unless Council votes against an increase.

d)            An increase of 2% be applied to all Special Responsibility Allowances

e)            The Council should continue to adhere to the established conventions that no member should receive more than one SRA and that no more than 50% of elected members should receive an SRA.

f)             Before the next major review, detailed role profiles be drafted for each role qualifying for an SRA, to assist with future evaluation of responsibilities, complexity and time commitment.

g)            The existing levels of dependent carer’s allowance should be increased to allow the reimbursement of up to a maximum of the current National Living Wage (currently £8.75 per hour).

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

To consider the report of the Portfolio Holder for Regeneration and Planning.

Council considered a report of Cabinet, which had been deferred from the November Council meeting.

The report was an update setting out progress on the emerging draft development framework and the work undertaken so far. Councillor Hanson presented the report and responded to questions from Members.

Resolved:

That the report be noted.

To consider the following motion submitted by Councillors Tim Hamilton-Cox, Caroline Jackson, Jon Barry and Kevin Frea.

“Motion on reducing climate change emissions from new-build homes by improving their minimum energy efficiency standard.

This Council notes:

·         the Government announcement in July 2018 that Council could set their own energy efficiency standards for new buildings beyond those set in Part L of the Building Regulations;

·         the October 2018 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) highlighting that we only have around 12 years to reduce climate change emissions in order to limit global warming to 1.5 C. degrees above pre-industrial levels, for the reasons set out in the IPPC's report;

·         that local authorities are best placed to take a lead on, and implement, many of the measures needed to reduce climate change emissions.

This Council believes:

·         that one such measure is to improve the energy efficiency standards in new buildings, not only to reduce carbon emissions, but also to keep money that would otherwise go to energy companies circulating in our local economy;

·         that improving energy efficiency in new buildings is just one part of a strategy to reduce emissions in our district but is an important step to take that should be part of a wider strategy to be set out in a further motion in December following cross-party discussion.

This Council resolves:

·         to instate Level 4 of the Sustainable Homes Code as the minimum standard on all new homes and include this direction in the draft Local Plan;

·         to require a Passivhaus standard, as exemplified by the Lancaster Co-housing development in Halton, for all new homes built on council-owned land (following the lead of councils in Norwich and Cambridge, which have mandated higher standards of sustainability for homes on council-owned land);

·         to expand the range of housing specified in the Canal Quarter section of the draft Local Plan to include social and affordable homes and that these homes match the Passivhaus standard at Halton.”

An officer briefing note is attached.

(Having previously declared an interest in this item,

Councillor Charles left the Chamber at this point.)

The following motion, deferred from the November Council meeting, was moved by Councillor Hamilton-Cox and seconded by Councillor Frea. Notice of the motion had been given to the Chief Executive in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 15.

“Motion on reducing climate change emissions from new-build homes by improving their minimum energy efficiency standard.

This Council notes:

·         the Government announcement in July 2018 that Council could set their own energy efficiency standards for new buildings beyond those set in Part L of the Building Regulations;

·         the October 2018 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) highlighting that we only have around 12 years to reduce climate change emissions in order to limit global warming to 1.5 C. degrees above pre-industrial levels, for the reasons set out in the IPPC's report;

·         that local authorities are best placed to take a lead on, and implement, many of the measures needed to reduce climate change emissions.

This Council believes:

·         that one such measure is to improve the energy efficiency standards in new buildings, not only to reduce carbon emissions, but also to keep money that would otherwise go to energy companies circulating in our local economy;

·         that improving energy efficiency in new buildings is just one part of a strategy to reduce emissions in our district but is an important step to take that should be part of a wider strategy to be set out in a further motion in December following cross-party discussion.

This Council resolves:

·         to instate Level 4 of the Sustainable Homes Code as the minimum standard on all new homes and include this direction in the draft Local Plan;

·         to require a Passivhaus standard, as exemplified by the Lancaster Co-housing development in Halton, for all new homes built on council-owned land (following the lead of councils in Norwich and Cambridge, which have mandated higher standards of sustainability for homes on council-owned land);

·         to expand the range of housing specified in the Canal Quarter section of the draft Local Plan to include social and affordable homes and that these homes match the Passivhaus standard at Halton.”

An officer briefing note had been circulated with the agenda.

At the conclusion of the debate a vote was taken and the motion was lost, with 16 Members in favour, 28 against and one abstention.

 (Councillor Charles returned to the Chamber at this point.)

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 reminded Councillors that four questions had been received by the Chief Executive in accordance with Council Procedure Rules in time for the November meeting. The questions had been deferred to this meeting and were as follows:

(1)      Councillor Barry to Councillor Pattison regarding a trading pitch in the outdoor Market in Lancaster.

(2)      Councillor Hamilton-Cox to Councillor Burns regarding grant aid for a full-fibre network.

(3)      Councillor Hamilton-Cox to Councillor Clifford regarding Middleton Solar Farm.

(4)      Councillor Caroline Jackson to Councillor Warriner regarding stray dogs.

The questioners agreed to receive written answers, Details of the questions and answers are appended to the minutes.

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.

Resolved:

That the report be noted. 

Council is recommended to pass the following recommendation in relation to the following item(s):- 

“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 of Schedule 12A of that Act.” 

Members are reminded that, whilst the following item(s) have been marked as exempt, it is for 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 also whether the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.  In considering their discretion Members should also be mindful of the advice of Council Officers. 

(The Monitoring Officer left the Chamber for this item, and the following item. Having advised the Standards Committee up to this point, he did not feel it appropriate to give advice to Council regarding the Committee’s recommendations.)

The Mayor reminded Council that it had been recommended to exclude the press and public from the meeting for the following item on the grounds that it could involve the possible disclosure of exempt information.

Councillor Pattison moved, seconded by Councillor Redfern:

“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 it could involve the possible disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 3 of Schedule 12A of that Act.” 

A vote was taken and the motion was carried.

Resolved:

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 it could involve the possible disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 3 of Schedule 12A of that Act. 

(Members of the public left the Council Chamber at this point, as did Councillors Brown, Burns, Hartley, Mace, Whitaker, Wild, Peter Williamson and Yates, having previously declared an interest.)

Referral from Standards Committee

Report to follow

Members considered a report of the Standards Committee which was exempt from publication by virtue of paragraph 1 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

Councillor Barry, Vice-Chairman of the Standards Committee, introduced the report and responded to questions from Members. It was noted that the report and recommendations erroneously referred to the Committee’s terms of reference as being set out in Appendix 2, instead of Appendix 5.

Councillor Barry proposed the recommendations in the report, set out below, seconded by Councillor Novell.

“(1)    To appoint a single purpose Standards Committee with a differently constituted membership for the purpose of considering the investigation, councillor conduct during the investigation phase, and the data breach.

(2)     To amend the Standards Committee’s terms of reference, as set out in Appendix 5, to clearly state the need for political impartiality in decision making.”

Councillor Goodrich, asked if could make a friendly addendum to recommendation (2) to add “to reflect current practice.” This was accepted as a friendly amendment by the proposer and his seconder. Debate followed, the matter was put to the vote and the proposal was clearly carried.

Attention then turned to appointing members to the new single purpose Standards Committee. Each political group nominated their membership (Councillors Whitehead, Reynolds, Rivet and Blamire for the Labour Group; Councillor Brookes for the Green Group and Councillors Bateson and Phillippa Williamson for the Conservative Group). The nominations were accepted. Three nominations for Chairman were proposed and seconded (Councillor Brookes; Councillor Whitehead and Councillor Phillippa Williamson).

A vote was taken to appoint a Chairman. With 8 votes for Councillor Brookes, 21 votes for Councillor Whitehead and 11 votes for Councillor Phillippa Williamson, Councillor Brookes, having received the lowest number of votes, dropped out and a second vote was taken. With 23 votes for Councillor Whitehead and 13 votes for Councillor Phillippa Williamson, the Mayor declared Councillor Whitehead Chairman of the single purpose Standards Committee.

Resolved:

(1)       To appoint a single purpose Standards Committee with a differently constituted membership for the purpose of considering the investigation, councillor conduct during the investigation phase, and the data breach.

(2)       To amend the Standards Committee’s terms of reference, as set out in Appendix 5, to clearly state the need for political impartiality in decision making to reflect current practice.

(3)       That the membership of the single purpose Standards Committee be Councillors Bateson, Blamire, Brookes, Reynolds, Rivet, Whitehead and Phillippa Williamson.

(4)     That Councillor Whitehead be appointed Chairman of the single purpose Standards Committee.

Referral of Personnel Committee

Report to follow

(The Monitoring Officer and Councillors who had absented themselves from the Chamber for the previous item of business returned to the Chamber at this point.)

Members considered a report of the Personnel Committee to enable Council to make a decision regarding the Chief Executive post, following the resignation of the current Chief Executive.

Councillor Kershaw, Chairman of the Personnel Committee, introduced the report and responded to questions from Members.

Councillor Kershaw proposed the recommendations in the report, set out below, seconded by Councillor Pattison.

“(1)  That Council agrees the recommendation of Personnel Committee, to set up a sub-committee of full council to appoint the Head of Paid service (Chief Executive).

(2)     The sub-committee shall agree and implement the process for recruitment of the Head of Paid Service (Chief Executive), and agree any interim arrangements necessary.”

Councillor Goodrich asked to make a friendly amendment by way of an addendum:

“(3)    That the sub-committee should investigate whether sharing a Chief Executive might be possible.”

This was not accepted by Councillors Kershaw or Pattison. Councillor Edwards seconded Councillor Goodrich’s amendment.

There was some debate on the amendment before it was put to the vote and, with 18 members voting for and 30 voting against, the amendment was lost.

Councillor Hamilton-Cox then proposed an amendment to (1):

“(1)  That Council sets up a sub-committee of full Council to bring options for appointing a Head of Paid Service back to full Council in January for consideration.”

This was not accepted by Councillors Kershaw or Pattison. Councillor Brookes seconded Councillor Hamilton-Cox’s amendment.

The amendment was put to the vote and was lost, with 18 Members voting in favour and 30 against.

A vote was then taken on the original proposition and, with 33 Members voting in favour, 9 against and four abstentions, the motion was passed.

(The meeting adjourned at 8pm for a ten minute comfort break,

in accordance with Council Procedure Rules.)

The Mayor then asked political groups to nominate members to the Chief Executive Recruitment Committee. Each group nominated their membership (Councillors Kershaw, Blamire, Betts-Patel, Pattison and Cozler for the Labour Group; Councillor Caroline Jackson for the Green Group and Councillors Parkinson, Rogerson and Sykes for the Conservative Group). The nominations were accepted.

Councillors Kershaw and Parkinson were nominated for Chairman. With 29 votes for Councillor Kershaw and 19 votes for Councillor Parkinson, Councillor Kershaw was appointed Chairman of the Chief Executive Recruitment Committee.

Resolved:

(1)    That Council agrees the recommendation of Personnel Committee, to set up a sub-committee of full council to appoint the Head of Paid service (Chief Executive).

(2)     The sub-committee shall agree and implement the process for recruitment of the Head of Paid Service (Chief Executive), and agree any interim arrangements necessary.

(3)       That the membership of the Chief Executive Recruitment Committee be Councillors Betts-Patel, Blamire, Cozler, Caroline Jackson, Kershaw, Parkinson, Pattison, Rogerson and Sykes.

(4)       That Councillor Kershaw be appointed Chairman of the Chief Executive Recruitment Committee.

To consider the report of the Interim Financial Services Manager

(Councillors Charles, Hamilton-Cox, Parkinson, Rivet and Sykes, having disclosable pecuniary interests as private landlords, left the Chamber at this point.)

Members considered a report of the Interim Financial Services Manager, informing them of new discretionary powers available with regard to council tax premiums applicable to long term empty homes, and to review existing discount arrangements in relation to empty and substantially unfurnished properties.

Councillor Whitehead presented the report and responded to questions. She agreed to supply a written answer to Councillor Helme, who asked what arrangements would apply to a house left empty because the owner had died and probate was in progress.

Councillor Whitehead, seconded by Councillor Metcalfe, proposed:

“(1)      That the Council’s Empty Homes Council Tax Charging Policy for 2019/20 be amended to:

·         Levy an increasing “premium” of Council Tax, in line with new discretionary powers, on long term empty dwellings that have been empty and unfurnished for over two years, subject to statutory exemptions and locally determined exceptions.

·         Use the policy guidelines set out in Appendix A of the report, when determining applications for exceptions to the payment of a premium, for properties that have been vacant for more than two years.

(2)          That the S151 Officer beauthorisedtofinalisethe Council’s Empty Homes Charging Policy in line with (1) above,and to include “policy guidelines” for locally determined exceptions in line with Government guidance when available, and makeallothernecessaryarrangementsfor itsimplementation.

(3)          That the S151 Officer be authorised to advertise the variations to the Empty homes Charging Policy in accordance with statutory provisions.”

The proposition was debated before a vote was taken. With 30 Members in favour, 11 against and one abstention, the proposition was clearly carried.

Resolved:

(1)       That the Council’s Empty Homes Council Tax Charging Policy for 2019/20 be amended to:

·         Levy an increasing “premium” of Council Tax, in line with new discretionary powers, on long term empty dwellings that have been empty and unfurnished for over two years, subject to statutory exemptions and locally determined exceptions.

·         Use the policy guidelines set out in Appendix A of the report, when determining applications for exceptions to the payment of a premium, for properties that have been vacant for more than two years.

(2)          That the S151 Officer beauthorisedtofinalisethe Council’s Empty Homes Charging Policy in line with (1) above,and to include “policy guidelines” for locally determined exceptions in line with Government guidance when available, and makeallothernecessaryarrangementsfor itsimplementation.

(3)          That the S151 Officer be authorised to advertise the variations to the Empty homes Charging Policy in accordance with statutory provisions.

To consider the report of the Interim Financial Services Manager

(Councillors who had absented themselves for the item above

returned to the Chamber at this point.)

Council considered a report of the Interim Financial Services Manager seeking a decision on whether the existing Localised Council Tax Support (LCTS) scheme should be retained for application in 2019/20.

Councillor Whitehead presented the report and responded to questions. She agreed to supply written answers to Councillor Peter Williamson, who asked for the definition of ‘low incomes’ and how many councils were ‘the few’ which still provided full level of Council Tax support for working age claimants, depending on their circumstances.

Councillor Sykes asked for a figure of the total amount denied to parish councils in the last year because of the current policy. Councillor Whitehead agreed to supply a written answer to all Councillors for this question.

Councillor Guilding asked the number receiving relief on grounds of dementia. It was agreed that she would receive a written answer showing a breakdown of the grounds for relief.

Councillor Whitehead, seconded by Councillor Blamire, proposed:

“(1)    That Council retains its existing Localised Council Tax Support Scheme for 2019/20.

(2)     That the Interim Financial Services Manager be authorised to finalise and publish the Council’s approved Scheme for 2019/20 and make all other necessary arrangements for its implementation next financial year.”

Debate on the proposition followed. The Mayor called for a vote and the proposition was clearly carried, with 33 Members voting in favour, 9 against and four abstentions.

Resolved:

(1)     That Council retains its existing Localised Council Tax Support Scheme for 2019/20.

(2)     That the Interim Financial Services Manager be authorised to finalise and publish the Council’s approved Scheme for 2019/20 and make all other necessary arrangements for its implementation next financial year.

To consider the report of the Assistant Chief Executive

The Assistant Chief Executive submitted a report seeking agreement to contribute to the development of the Eden North proposals.

The Chief Executive responded to Members’ questions.

Councillor Hanson, seconded by Councillor Reynolds, proposed:

“(1)    That Council agrees to contribute £250,000 towards specific pieces of work which will significantly advance detailed work on the proposals for the development of the Eden North Project.

(2)     It is noted that £250,000 represents a 25% share of the total cost with each of the four partners being asked to contribute equally. The Council’s contribution will be conditional upon:

(i)      Each party making its contribution; and

(ii)      Confirmation to the Council that funds have been applied as specified.

After some debate, a vote was taken and the proposition was clearly carried.

Resolved:

(1)     That Council agrees to contribute £250,000 towards specific pieces of work which will significantly advance detailed work on the proposals for the development of the Eden North Project.

(2)     It is noted that £250,000 represents a 25% share of the total cost with each of the four partners being asked to contribute equally. The Council’s contribution will be conditional upon:

(i)      Each party making its contribution; and

(ii)      Confirmation to the Council that funds have been applied as specified.

Group Administrators to report any changes to Committee Membership.  

The Mayor asked political groups to report any changes to committee memberships. The Labour group reported that it wished to replace Councillor Burns with Councillor Hanson on the Constitution Review Working Group.

The change was proposed by Councillor Blamire, seconded by Councillor Brown. The proposal was clearly carried when put the vote.

Resolved:

That Councillor Hanson replace Councillor Burns on the Constitution Review Working Group.

(In view of the lateness of the hour, the Mayor took the decision to defer the two remaining items of business (question on notice from Members and minutes of the Cabinet meetings held on 6 November and 4 December 2018) until the January Council meeting.)

Referral of Council Business Committee

Council considered a report of the Council Business Committee recommending a timetable of committee meetings for 2019/20.

Councillor Reynolds presented the report and proposed the recommendations therein. Councillor Hall seconded the proposition.

There was no debate and the proposition was clearly carried when put to the vote.

Resolved:

(1)          That Council approves the draft 2019/20 timetable (Appendices A and B of the report) with the following revisions:

a)     That the agenda for the full Council budget meeting in February be limited to consideration of the Budget and Policy Framework proposals only.

b)     That two additional meetings of full Council be scheduled in future Council calendars towards the end of March and during June (26 June 2019 and 18 March 2020 for 2019/20 calendar).

c)     That a separate full Council meeting be arranged for any substantial agenda items.

(The finalised timetable is appended to the minutes.)

To consider the following motion submitted by Councillors Eileen Blamire and Peter Williamson.

“This Council notes:

·         That in principle it welcomes the opportunity for improving rail links to the North West, particularly the potential for High Speed 2 (HS2) to add further capacity to the existing West Coast Main Line rail network.

·         That the final HS2 timetable is subject to future revision and consultation, but it wishes to ensure that our citizens benefit from the social and economic advantages that connection of the West Coast Main Line to the wider HS2 network may bring.

This Council believes:

·         That the City of Lancaster’s mainline station should serve as a primary stopping station served by HS2 trains, which in turn will provide improved access for businesses, organisations, and residents within (and visitors to) the Lancaster District.

·         That the inclusion of Lancaster as a primary stopping station served by HS2 trains has the potential to improve the future transport connections to Morecambe, including to Eden North (Eden Project), which is an emerging and potentially nationally-significant proposal.

·         That the Council should continue to consult with other prominent politicians, business leaders and organisations within the district to establish high-level support for the inclusion of Lancaster as a primary stopping station served by HS2 trains.   

This Council resolves:

·         That the Chief Executive and Officers are empowered to promote Lancaster as a primary stopping station served by HS2 trains, on behalf of the City Council and its’ citizens, for the reasons set out above.

·         That Officers are empowered to respond positively, on behalf of the City Council and its’ citizens, to any future, relevant, national consultations regarding HS2 to promote Lancaster as a primary stopping station served by HS2 trains.

·         That as a first step, Officers arrange to work alongside prominent politicians, business leaders and organisations within the Lancaster District to collectively agree the detail regarding district-wide support for the inclusion of Lancaster as a primary stopping station served by HS2 trains.

·         That in promoting Lancaster as a primary stopping station served by HS2 trains, that residential amenity environmental standards will continue to be protected.”

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 Blamire and seconded by Councillor Peter Williamson:-

“This Council notes:

·         That in principle it welcomes the opportunity for improving rail links to the North West, particularly the potential for High Speed 2 (HS2) to add further capacity to the existing West Coast Main Line rail network.

·         That the final HS2 timetable is subject to future revision and consultation, but it wishes to ensure that our citizens benefit from the social and economic advantages that connection of the West Coast Main Line to the wider HS2 network may bring.

This Council believes:

·         That the City of Lancaster’s mainline station should serve as a primary stopping station served by HS2 trains, which in turn will provide improved access for businesses, organisations, and residents within (and visitors to) the Lancaster District.

·         That the inclusion of Lancaster as a primary stopping station served by HS2 trains has the potential to improve the future transport connections to Morecambe, including to Eden North (Eden Project), which is an emerging and potentially nationally-significant proposal.

·         That the Council should continue to consult with other prominent politicians, business leaders and organisations within the district to establish high-level support for the inclusion of Lancaster as a primary stopping station served by HS2 trains.   

This Council resolves:

·         That the Chief Executive and Officers are empowered to promote Lancaster as a primary stopping station served by HS2 trains, on behalf of the City Council and its’ citizens, for the reasons set out above.

·         That Officers are empowered to respond positively, on behalf of the City Council and its’ citizens, to any future, relevant, national consultations regarding HS2 to promote Lancaster as a primary stopping station served by HS2 trains.

·         That as a first step, Officers arrange to work alongside prominent politicians, business leaders and organisations within the Lancaster District to collectively agree the detail regarding district-wide support for the inclusion of Lancaster as a primary stopping station served by HS2 trains.

·         That in promoting Lancaster as a primary stopping station served by HS2 trains, that residential amenity environmental standards will continue to be protected.”

An officer briefing note accompanied the motion to aid the debate. The motion was clearly carried when put to the vote.

Resolved:-

This Council notes:

·         That in principle it welcomes the opportunity for improving rail links to the North West, particularly the potential for High Speed 2 (HS2) to add further capacity to the existing West Coast Main Line rail network.

·         That the final HS2 timetable is subject to future revision and consultation, but it wishes to ensure that our citizens benefit from the social and economic advantages that connection of the West Coast Main Line to the wider HS2 network may bring.

This Council believes:

·         That the City of Lancaster’s mainline station should serve as a primary stopping station served by HS2 trains, which in turn will provide improved access for businesses, organisations,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 99.

To consider the following motion submitted by Councillors Caroline Jackson, Roger Mace and Dave Brookes.

“This Council notes:

·        That 28 months have passed since the European Union (EU) Referendum,
and that we are now approaching a critical time when the results of the
negotiations on the terms of the UK's withdrawal from the EU will be
presented to Parliament for a decision

·        The significant support that the Lancaster district has received from the
EU over many years for farming, infrastructure investment, tourism and
the environment

·        There are at least 10,000 EU nationals working and studying in the
district, mainly in Lancaster University and the health service. In this
district there is nearly full employment: any reduction in the labour pool
will make recruitment difficult for businesses

·        That in a recent survey in Lancaster 91 % of those surveyed believed that
Brexit was not going well and that 86% of those surveyed said that there
should be a popular vote on the final deal before we leave the EU

·        The mounting public concern at the prospect of leaving the EU with
either a bad deal or no deal at all

·        That many Councils across the UK including, in the North West,
Trafford, Liverpool, Stockport, Preston, Knowsley and Warrington have
each adopted motions supporting calls for a People's Vote on the final
Brexit Deal. Other Councils have carried out impact studies on how their
area will be affected by Brexit.

This Council believes:

·        That prior to the UK leaving the EU a national People's Vote should be
held where the voters make their final choice.

This Council resolves:

·        To explore with other Councils in Lancashire preparing impact studies on
the effects that leaving the EU will have on the economy of the County.”

An officer briefing note has not been provided

Councillor Caroline Jackson had submitted a motion on notice about Brexit having given the required notice to the Chief Executive in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 15. Councillor Brookes proposed the motion on Councillor Caroline Jackson’s behalf, because she had lost her voice.

The motion was set out in the agenda:

“This Council notes:

·         That 28 months have passed since the European Union (EU) Referendum,
and that we are now approaching a critical time when the results of the
negotiations on the terms of the UK's withdrawal from the EU will be
presented to Parliament for a decision

·         The significant support that the Lancaster district has received from the
EU over many years for farming, infrastructure investment, tourism and
the environment

·         There are at least 10,000 EU nationals working and studying in the
district, mainly in Lancaster University and the health service. In this
district there is nearly full employment: any reduction in the labour pool
will make recruitment difficult for businesses

·         That in a recent survey in Lancaster 91 % of those surveyed believed that
Brexit was not going well and that 86% of those surveyed said that there
should be a popular vote on the final deal before we leave the EU

·         The mounting public concern at the prospect of leaving the EU with
either a bad deal or no deal at all

·         That many Councils across the UK including, in the North West,
Trafford, Liverpool, Stockport, Preston, Knowsley and Warrington have
each adopted motions supporting calls for a People's Vote on the final
Brexit Deal. Other Councils have carried out impact studies on how their
area will be affected by Brexit.

This Council believes:

·         That prior to the UK leaving the EU a national People's Vote should be
held where the voters make their final choice.

·         This Council resolves:

·         To explore with other Councils in Lancashire preparing impact studies on
the effects that leaving the EU will have on the economy of the County.”

Councillor Mace seconded the motion.

At the conclusion of the debate a vote was taken and the motion was clearly carried.

Resolved:-

This Council notes:

·        That 28 months have passed since the European Union (EU) Referendum,
and that we are now approaching a critical time when the results of the
negotiations on the terms of the UK's withdrawal from the EU will be
presented to Parliament for a decision

·        The significant support that the Lancaster district has received from the
EU over many years for farming, infrastructure investment, tourism and
the environment

·        There are at least 10,000 EU nationals working and studying in the
district, mainly in Lancaster University and the health service. In this
district there is nearly full employment: any reduction in the labour pool
will make recruitment difficult for businesses

·        That in a recent survey in Lancaster 91 % of those surveyed believed that
Brexit was not going well and that 86% of those surveyed said that there
should be a popular vote on the final deal before we leave  ...  view the full minutes text for item 100.