Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Tony Anderson, Paul Anderton, Dave Brookes, Darren Clifford, Roger Dennison, Merv Evans, Jake Goodwin, Mel Guilding, Geoff Knight, Sarah Knight, Erica Lewis, Stewart Scothern, David Whitworth and Jason Wood.

To receive as a correct record the Minutes of the Meeting of the City Council held on 23 June 2021 (previously circulated). 

The minutes of the meeting held on 23 June 2021 were signed by the Mayor as a correct record.

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

Councillors are reminded that, in accordance with the Localism Act 2011, they are required to declare any disclosable pecuniary interests which have not already been declared in the Council’s Register of Interests. (It is a criminal offence not to declare a disclosable pecuniary interest either in the Register or at the meeting). 

Whilst not a legal requirement, in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 9 and in the interests of clarity and transparency, Councillors should declare any disclosable pecuniary interests which they have already declared in the Register, at this point in the meeting. 

In accordance with Part B Section 2 of the Code Of Conduct, Councillors are required to declare the existence and nature of any other interests as defined in paragraphs 8(1) or 9(2) of the Code of Conduct. 

No declarations of interest were made.

The Chief Executive reported that the Government had announced its decision to progress proposals for two unitary councils in Cumbria. Proposals for West Cumbria and East Cumbria would go forward for Parliamentary approval. The  joint proposal for a new Bay Unitary Authority made up of Lancaster City Council, South Lakeland District Council and Barrow Borough council would not be progressed further.

The Mayor informed Councillors that he would re-order the agenda to take the notice on motion after the public speaker, therefore Item 12 would be taken after Item 7.

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. 

It was noted that a question for Councillor Brookes, Cabinet Member for Environmental Services had been received from County Councillor Margaret Pattison.

Councillor Brookes had given apologies for the meeting and had agreed to send a written response to County Councillor Pattison in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 11.10.

No petitions had been received.

The Mayor noted that Mr Noah Katz was in attendance to make an address. The text of his speech had been circulated to all Councillors prior to the meeting via email.

Mr Katz spoke to Councillors on behalf of the Lancaster and Lakes Jewish Community. The wording of the speech is attached to the minutes.

The Mayor thanked Mr Katz for making his address to Council.

To consider a motion on notice to be moved and seconded by Councillors Lewis, Duggan, Hamilton-Cox and Pritchard.

The motion and an officer briefing note are included in the agenda papers.

A motion on notice regarding an Ethical and Sustainable Investment Policy had been submitted for the meeting by Councillors Lewis, De La Mare (formerly Duggan), Hamilton-Cox and Pritchard..

The motion was set out in the agenda papers as follows:

Preamble:

At the 23^rd June 2021 meeting of Lancaster City Council, a resolution was passed which expressed the Council’s support for the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement and committed the council to write to Lancashire County Pension Fund urging them to divest in line with that campaign. Campaigns calling for ethical consumption and investment have a long history and have been used to influence national governments as well as individual companies e.g. Nestlé on baby milk formula, Shell for its environmental and human rights record, and apartheid in South Africa. In February 2020 the United Nations Human Rights Council received a paper from the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Secretary-General that provided a “Database of all business enterprises involved in the activities detailed in paragraph 96 of the report of the independent international fact-finding mission to investigate the implications of the Israeli settlements on the civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights of the Palestinian people throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem” as had been requested by previous United Nations resolutions.

The June 2021 motion limited its scope to the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) of Israel. This followed on from several local mass gatherings protesting forced evictions and escalations in violence in Palestine. However, it has been suggested that by having this singular focus the motion was setting a higher standard for Israel than other nations, a form of antisemitism. This was raised during the debate, and in some emails received by the council afterwards, and several councillors also raised other human rights abuses and sustainability issues that they would like to see addressed in a comprehensive ethical and sustainable investment policy.

Given the previous motion and noting that while it has been welcomed by some residents and groups, members of our local Jewish community have expressed concern about the text of the motion, and they have communicated that the motion might create a more hostile environment for the local Jewish community.  It is therefore important that this council resolves to develop a comprehensive ethical and sustainable investment policy without delay.

 The Council notes that:

1.     it has previously discussed the need to take an ethical and sustainable approach to investment of Lancaster City Council funds to support our priorities and to ask the same of those who manage funds on our behalf, including the Lancashire Pension Fund; 

2.     increasingly pension funds are large investors who are being asked to take an ethical and sustainable approach to investment including considerations of workers’ condition in properties owned by funds, and where these funds have a geographic link, to support community wealth building;

3.     many of the Sustainable Development Goals speak to the importance of investment as a driver for securing fundamental human  ...  view the full minutes text for item 42.

The Leader informed Council of three errors in her report.

Paragraph 3.2 COVID 19 work; The toolkit had been published by the Department of Health and Social Care, not the County Council.

Paragraph 3.5 Eden; the Chief Executive, not the Leader, would be meeting with David Morris MP in the near future.

Paragraph 4 Decisions; the Provisional General Fund Outturn 2020/21 was not considered by Cabinet on 13 July 2021. The item was deferred until the September Cabinet meeting.

The Leader then responded to questions from Councillors.

Resolved:

That the report be noted.

To receive a report of the Leader.

The Leader had submitted a report to inform Council that she had appointed Councillor Thornberry to the Police and Crime Panel. In accordance with the wishes of the Labour Group, she appointed Councillor Wood as the substitute member for the Panel, the substitute having to come from the same political group as the appointed member, to accord with political balance rules for the Panel.

The report included a change of appointment. The Leader would replace Councillor Thornberry on the Community Safety Partnership.

Resolved:

That the report be noted.

To consider the first of two motions on notice regarding reforms to the planning system. This motion has been submitted by Councillor Matthews (proposer) and Councillor Dant (seconder) and is included in the agenda papers along with an officer briefing note which covers both motions.

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

“The Government has published highly controversial proposals to reform the planning system. 

One aspect that has raised particular concern for local authorities is the proposal to remove local residents’ right to object to individual planning applications in their own neighbourhood if the area is zoned for growth or renewal. 

Last month, the House of Commons called on the Government to protect residents’ rights to retain a voice over planning applications, recognising that the best way to get necessary new homes built is to support communities, councils, and developers to work in partnership.

A motion was passed by the House of Commons, with support from MPs of all political parties, supporting the principle of protecting residents’ right to a say over individual planning applications in their own area.

Many local people have already expressed anger that this long-established democratic right is under threat. 

Lancaster City Council believes: 

That planning works best when developers and the local community work together to shape local areas and deliver necessary new homes; and therefore, calls on the Government to protect the right of communities to object to individual planning applications. 

The City Council therefore resolves: 

To write to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to ask the Government to protect the right of communities to object to individual planning applications, expressing the concerns above.”

The motion was accompanied on the agenda by a briefing note from officers.

Councillor Thornberry noted that there were two very similar motions on the agenda regarding planning. She proposed the following amendment and informed the Mayor that, if her amendment was accepted, she would withdraw the similar motion she had submitted at item 11 on the agenda.

“To insert the following into the motion:

The Council notes that:

·       There is an urgent local need for affordable housing

·       There are major concerns about development worsening flooding

·       Lancaster City Council Cabinet has just approved a consultation draft of updates to the local plan to strengthen our response to the climate emergency, these are issues which could be ignored or bypassed if local involvement in planning is reduced

·       Planning works best when developers and the local community work together to shape local areas and deliver sustainable, affordable, accessible and necessary new homes

·       The Government’s proposed planning changes are a threat to local democracy and involvement.”

The amendment, which was seconded by Councillor Robinson, was accepted as a friendly amendment by Councillor Matthews and Councillor Dant.

After a short debate, the motion was put to the vote and clearly carried.

Resolved:

The Government has published highly controversial proposals to reform the planning system. 

One aspect that has raised particular concern for local authorities is the proposal to remove local residents’ right to object to individual planning applications in their own neighbourhood if the area is zoned for growth or renewal. 

Last  ...  view the full minutes text for item 45.

To consider the second motion on notice regarding reforms to the planning system submitted by Councillor Thornberry (proposer) and Councillors Hanson, Lewis and Robinson.

The motion is set out in the agenda papers and the officer briefing note for both motions about the planning system is included with motion 1.

Councillor Thornberry had submitted a motion on notice regarding Reforms to the Planning System, with Councillors Hanson, Lewis and Robinson as seconders.

The motion was included in the agenda as follows:

“Last month the House of Commons called on the Government to protect residents’

 rights to retain a voice in planning applications. 

The Government proposals to reform the planning system are based on the concept of a zoning system.  If an area is zoned for growth or renewal, developers can be granted outline planning permission.  The normal second stage of applying for full planning applications will be removed.  Planning committees won’t decide applications in the same way and people will not have the same right to comment on specific proposals.

The Council notes that:

·       there is an urgent local need for affordable housing;

·       there are major concerns about development worsening flooding;

·       Lancaster City Council Cabinet has just approved a consultation draft of updates to the local plan to strengthen our response to the climate emergency

·       these are issues which could be ignored or bypassed if local involvement in planning is reduced

·       planning works best when developers and the local community work together to shape local areas and deliver sustainable, affordable, accessible and necessary new homes

·       the Government’s proposed planning changes are a threat to local democracy and involvement.

The Council resolves that:

·       the Chief Executive write to the Secretary of State expressing our belief that the rights of our residents and local groups to be heard in the local planning process and on individual planning applications should not only be maintained, but strengthened

·       all consultation responses prepared by Lancaster City Council include this position, whenever relevant.”

The Officer Briefing note for the motion was the same as that attached to the similar motion (Item 10, previous minute refers) which had just been dealt with.

In view of the motion which had just been passed by Council, Councillor Thornberry sought Council’s permission to withdraw her motion, seconded by Councillor Hanson. A vote was taken and the proposal to withdraw the motion was clearly carried.  

Group Administrators to report any changes to Committee Membership.  

It was reported that there had been no changes made to committee memberships since the last Council meeting.

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 one question had been received by the Chief Executive in accordance with Council Procedure Rules, from Councillor Dant to Councillor Lewis. Councillor Lewis had given apologies for the meeting and would circulate a written answer to Councillor Dant and all other Members.

Councillor Dant read out his question for the benefit of those present:

“On 13th November 2019 Full Council resolved:

“This council believes that it might make better use of the skills of all its councillors and improve the democratic accountability of decision making by ceasing the current leader and cabinet model of governance and implementing a committee system. Council will establish a Working Group, with membership in balance, to investigate the best way to introduce a committee system of governance, taking into account the experiences of other councils. The investigation will lead to a detailed, legally and constitutionally sound proposal to be presented to full Council for consideration on or before its meeting in September 2020. That proposal will set out a future programme for implementation of any change to the system of governance.”

On the 18th of December 2019 Full Council set up a nine-member Committee System Working Party with representation in proportion to political balance. That Working Party met once on the 29th of January 2020 and has not met since. The impact of Covid19 stopped the normal workings of the Council and redirected the work of its officers so no proposal was brought to the meeting of the Council in September 2020. The delay to fulfilling the Council’s resolution is very understandable given the effects of the pandemic. However, most of the workings of the Council have been resumed for more than a year now and most officers have resumed their normal roles, albeit with different working arrangements.

Question: Will the Portfolio Holder for Corporate Services please tell the Council what arrangements are being made to reconvene the Committee System Working Party and when it is expected to report to full Council in accordance with its resolution of November 2019?”

To receive the Minutes of Meeting of Cabinet held on 8 June 2021. 

Council considered the Cabinet minutes of the meeting held on 8 June 2021. The Leader and other Cabinet Members responded to questions from Councillors. The Leader referred to the presentation regarding the South Lancaster Growth Catalyst provided to Councillors before the June Council meeting. She suggested that all Members refer to the slides which had been circulated. The presentation and slides contained a great deal of useful information.

Resolved:

That the minutes be noted.