Agenda and draft minutes

Cabinet - Tuesday, 8th July 2025 6.00 p.m.

Venue: Morecambe Town Hall

Contact: Liz Bateson, Democratic Support - email ebateson@lancaster.gov.uk

Items

No.

Item

18.

Minutes

To receive as a correct record the minutes of Cabinet held on Tuesday, 3 June 2025 (previously circulated).

Minutes:

The minutes of the meeting held on Tuesday 3 June 2025 were approved as a correct record.

19.

Items of Urgent Business Authorised by the Leader

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

Minutes:

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

20.

Declarations of Interest

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.

Minutes:

Councillors Bottoms and Hart expressed an interest in Agenda item 8 Local Government: Morecambe Town Council ‘Memorandum of Understanding’ in their capacity as being Morecambe Town Councillors.

21.

Public Speaking

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

Minutes:

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

22.

Establishment of Habitat Banks in Lancaster District PDF 343 KB

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Tyldesley)

Report of Chief Officer – Planning and Climate Change

Additional documents:

Appendix 1 for Biodiversity Net Gain BNG Entering Legal Agreements to Secure Offsite BNG_Chorley , item 22. PDF 544 KB

Minutes:

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Tyldesley)

Cabinet received a report from the Chief Officer Planning and Climate Change to agree to the approach to securing local Habitat Banks within the district by entering into legal agreements with offsite biodiversity unit providers and approve progression of a Council-owned Habitat Bank delegating specific designation of Council-owned land for habitat banks to the Chief Officer – Planning and Climate Change, following case-by-case consultation with the other relevant Chief Officers comprising the Council’s Senior Leadership Team.

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

Given that there are 2 proposals, both proposals are separately analysed in this section.

Proposal 1: S106 agreements to secure private land with a Habitat Management and Monitoring Plan (HMMP) for Offsite Biodiversity Net Gain

	Option 1: S106 agreement with private landowners to secure offsite biodiversity gains	Option 2: direct landowners to Responsible Bodies for conservation covenants
Advantages	Provides revenue to oversee compliance with the S106 agreement. Council can work with landowners so proposals contribute to local nature recovery and potentially align with other policy, e.g. Green and Blue Infrastructure/LNRS/ flood risk reduction. Example templates for legal agreements are available (Planning Advisory Service).	No responsibilities for Council, just ensure biodiversity units are registered and correctly allocated to in-district developments post[1]decision
Disadvantages	Requires input from multiple services to determine acceptability of proposal and minimise risk of need for future enforcement.	May be more expensive for landowner, depending on Responsible Body criteria may only take large projects. Habitat bank may be set up out of district. No revenue to Council.
Risks	May only get small scale proposals from developers for their own developments, rather than habitat banks at large scale. Habitat bank business might fail during the 30-year period. Could require a bond to insure against this, but it may affect viability in early stage. Unforeseen events (e.g. catastrophic storm, fire or new disease – but landowner would not be penalised in such cases).	Entry into S106 is discretionary, but Council could be seen as unreasonable in refusing a viable option, especially if challenged in an appeal on a developer-led proposal).

Proposal 2: Development of a habitat bank on Council-owned land

Option 1: Enter into a S106 agreement with Chorley Council for habitat bank at Burrow Beck solar array

Option 2: To not enter into a S106 Agreement with Chorley Council, and to further explore alternatives

Advantages

S106 is a legal agreement type known to both Councils.

Low cost for S106 monitoring role payable to Chorley Council (c. £8000 plus legal costs) as Chorley has assessed the site as small and low risk.

A simple stand-alone agreement, with no need for a reciprocal arrangement.

Cost of maintenance of habitat at this site will be met by the revenue from the solar farm, whether or not the site becomes a habitat bank.

Revenue from sale or allocation of biodiversity units can be used to help set up habitat ... view the full minutes text for item 22.

23.

Local Government: Morecambe Town Council 'Memorandum of Understanding' PDF 355 KB

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Peter Jackson)

Report of Chief Executive

Additional documents:

Morecambe Town Council MOU , item 23. PDF 179 KB

Minutes:

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Peter Jackson)

Cabinet received a report from the Chief Executive to request that Cabinet adopts the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Lancaster City Council and Morecambe Town Council.

As Members of Morecambe Town Council Councillor Bottoms and Hart had declared an interest in this item.

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

	Option 1: Adopt the MOU and commit the council to the stated objectives and priorities.	Option 2: Do not adopt the MOU and do not commit to the objectives and priorities.
Advantages	If adopted, the Chief Executive will sign the MOU and establish a meeting structure and action plan.	No advantages are identified for this option.
Disadvantages	No specific disadvantages are identified for this option.	If not adopted, the Council will have less emphasis on local government collaboration and less structured communication with Morecambe Town Council. This may reduce opportunity for progressive and collaborative action that benefits Morecambe residents.
Risks	None identified.	None identified.

The officer recommended option is to proceed with adopting the MOU so that the Chief Executive can sign the MOU and move towards the delivery of outcomes (Option 1).

Councillor Peter Jackson proposed, seconded by Councillor Hamilton-Cox:-

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

Councillors then voted:-

Resolved:

(7 Members (Councillors Hamilton-Cox, Hart, Caroline Jackson, Peter Jackson, Riches, Tyldesley & Wilkinson) voted in favour, and 1 Member (Councillor Bottoms) abstained.)

(1) That Cabinet agrees to the principles and objectives as detailed in the Memorandum of Understanding and authorises the Chief Executive to sign on the Council’s behalf.

Officer responsible for effecting the decision:

Chief Executive

Reasons for making the decision:

The report provides details of the objectives of the MOU and outlines the content and importance for effective local government collaboration amidst a period of potential change. Cabinet adoption of the MOU will enable officers to progress with the aims of this collaboration.

Effective local government communication and action aligns with the strategic principles of the Council Plan 2024-2027. Most notably this will evidence an informal partnership for shared ambitions.

24.

Local Government: Carnforth Town Council 'Memorandum of Understanding' PDF 356 KB

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Peter Jackson)

Report of Chief Executive

Additional documents:

Carnforth Town Council MOU , item 24. PDF 203 KB

Minutes:

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Peter Jackson)

Cabinet received a report from the Chief Executive to request that Cabinet adopts the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Lancaster City Council and Carnforth Town Council

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

	Option 1: Adopt the MOU and commit the council to the stated objectives and priorities.	Option 2: Do not adopt the MOU and do not commit to the objectives and priorities.
Advantages	If adopted, the Chief Executive will sign the MOU and establish a meeting structure and action plan.	No advantages are identified for this option.
Disadvantages	No specific disadvantages are identified for this option.	If not adopted, the Council will have less emphasis on local government collaboration and less structured communication with Carnforth Town Council. This may reduce opportunity for progressive and collaborative action that benefits Carnforth residents.
Risks	None identified.	None identified.

Councillor Peter Jackson proposed, seconded by Councillor Bottoms:-

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

Councillors then voted:-

Resolved unanimously:

(1) That Cabinet agrees to the principles and objectives as detailed in the Memorandum of Understanding and authorises the Chief Executive to sign on the Council’s behalf.

Officer responsible for effecting the decision:

Chief Executive

Reasons for making the decision:

Effective local government communication and action aligns with the strategic principles of the Council Plan 2024-2027. Most notably this will evidence an informal partnership for shared ambitions.

25.

City Museum Redevelopment PDF 283 KB

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Wilkinson)

Report of Chief Officer Sustainable Growth (report published 3.7.25)

Additional documents:

Minutes:

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Wilkinson)

Cabinet received a report from the Chief Officer Sustainable Growth that sought support for the project to redevelop the City Museum.

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

	Option 1: Do nothing	Option 2: Support a smaller scheme to re-develop the City Museum displays and public spaces	Option 3: Support scheme for full redevelopment of the City Museum.
Advantages	Cheaper in the short term	Will refresh the public offer of the City Museum and increase its visitor numbers, helping to increase income and support the High Street	Will refresh the public offer, create new public spaces, visitor footfall, income, opening hours, staffing levels and school visits. At the same time support the visitor economy (helping to retain visitors to Eden within the district) and the High Street (helping reduce anti-social behaviour in Market Square) and support community building/cohesion and wellbeing. Opportunity to create links with the Library next door for an enhanced cultural offer.
Disadvantages	Museum Service and City Museum building will continue to deteriorate and become unfit for purpose.	City Museum building in need of significant infrastructure repair and improvements (minimum £0.5m over the next 10 years). Significant damage to the building has been caused by water ingress, which has also damaged collections. Building currently has poor public facilities (e.g. no toilets), poor accessibility (e.g.no lift). Redisplaying the museum will not provide enough income to significantly increase staffing levels and opening hours or reduce spend through energy efficiencies.	Will require considerable Council resources in terms of officer time. Will require the City Museum to close for around 3 years from 2029-32. Will mean long-term borrowing on the part of the Council (although the intention is that this will be repaid from the increase in museum income).
Risks	Museum Service will become unsustainable and will cease to exist with negative consequences for Lancaster High Street, Visitor Economy, local communities, local schools and the future of the museum collections.	Council has to pay the full cost of building repairs and infrastructure improvements (such as re-wiring) and new displays. Museums unable to develop income to the point where it supports +50% of museum turnover or can cover the costs of borrowing to support museum developments. City Museum becomes unfit for purpose due to inaccessibility and lack of public facilities.	That the City Museum redevelopment is not as successful as planned and the liability for the debt repayment returns to the Council from museum budgets.

Option 3 is the officer preferred option – detailed work by Barker Langham established that a larger-scale redevelopment project had the greatest chance of success and of securing the museum and the building into the future. The Museum Service Review established that the City Museum building and displays require significant investment in order to support the sustainability of the City Museums and become the flagship for the district’s heritage that it has the potential to become, telling the ... view the full minutes text for item 25.

26.

Lancaster City Centre Car Parking Strategy PDF 486 KB

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Wilkinson)

Report of Chief Officer Sustainable Growth

Additional documents:

Minutes:

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Wilkinson)

Cabinet received a report from the Chief Officer Sustainable Growth to consider the next steps in agreeing and approving the Lancaster City Centre Parking Strategy and Action Plan to give explicit policy support and further certainty to the achievement of the city council’s car parking and wider social, environmental and economic objectives.

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

	Option 1: Do not approve the revised Lancaster City Centre Car Parking Strategy and Action Plan	Option 2: Approve the revised Lancaster City Centre Car Parking Strategy and Action Plan
Advantages	No advantages identified	Provides a clear policy framework for delivering an improved parking portfolio aligned with the council’s broader goals on economic vitality, climate action, and housing. Provides a statement that can be considered within the context of regional decisions on local transport and movement policy / resources. Confirms support for previously agreed city council capital and revenue interventions. Provides an explicit response to the draft strategy consultation feedback and business/community concerns by confirming policy intent as well as active delivery.
Disadvantages	Fails to provide an explicit response to consultation and fails to provide a policy design . shape to feed into regional transport objectives and regeneration goals. Council does not further commit to evidence-based policy planning, which may erode trust in decisions. Creates uncertainty limiting strategic planning and reducing the council’s ability to coordinate land use. Difficult to consider release of further Canal Quarter sites for affordable housing as the target strategic parking numbers could not be maintained without the proposed interventions and underpinning policy justification.
Risks

Following Members’ consideration and confirmation that the proposals meet the council’s objectives and its wider policy aspirations, Option 2 is preferred. The strategy is a policy document which outlines controlled, phased, and pragmatic investment in Lancaster’s future parking infrastructure as a significant element of local transport and regeneration infrastructure planning.

Councillor Wilkinson proposed, seconded by Councillor Tyldesley:-

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

Councillors then voted:-

Resolved unanimously:

(1) That the Lancaster City Centre Car Parking Strategy and Action Plan 2025– 2028 (including its strategic aims, delivery framework, and implementation timeline) be approved.

(2) That a strategy review is progressed through 2027 including performance data, user feedback, and updates to delivery priorities.

(3) That individual project decisions will return to the relevant authority (Cabinet/Portfolio Holder) where further staged approvals or funding decisions are required subject to correct governance and due diligence being in place.

Officer responsible for effecting the decision:

Chief Officer Sustainable Growth

Reasons for making the decision:

Concerns from the business community, about the long-term provision of public parking, and general parking are understood. Through the revised Lancaster City Centre Car Parking Strategy and Action Plan, alongside ongoing work with county council, the issue will be addressed at a strategic city-wide level, with appreciation of the statutory strategic policy imperatives the city council is working ... view the full minutes text for item 26.

27.

Reporting in of Urgent Business Decision PDF 208 KB

Report of Chief Officer Governance

Minutes:

In accordance with the Scheme of Delegation to Officers (Part 2, Section 7 – Delegations to the Chief Executive Matters of Urgency) the Chief Executive submitted a report to Cabinet with details of an urgent decision taken following consultation with the Leader, deputy Leader and with the agreement of the Chair of Overview & Scrutiny. The Urgent Decision related to the procurement of a contractor to carry out urgent works on Bridge House, Lancaster following defects discovered to the cladding and was taken on 5 June 2025. (UB 138 refers).

Resolved unanimously:

That the Urgent Decision taken by the Chief Executive on 5 June 2025 be noted.

28.

Exclusion of the Press and Public

This is to give further notice in accordance with Part 2, paragraph 5 (4) and 5 (5) of the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Meetings and Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2012 of the intention to take the following item(s) in private.

Cabinet 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(s) of business, on the grounds that they could involve the possible disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 3 of Schedule 12A of that Act.”

Members are reminded that, whilst the following item(s) have been marked as exempt, it is for Cabinet 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.

Minutes:

It was moved by Councillor Riches and seconded by Councillor Caroline Peter Jackson:

“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 then voted as follows:-

Resolved unanimously:

(1) 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.

29.

Electric Vehicle Charging Hub

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Riches)

Report of Chief Officer – Planning and Climate Change (report published on 3.7.25)

Minutes:

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Riches)

Cabinet received a report from the Chief Officer Planning & Climate Change which sought to update Cabinet on the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) Air Quality Grant; provide an options appraisal for an electric vehicle charging hub; and approval to deliver a scheme in 2025/26. The report was exempt from publication by virtue of paragraph 3 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act, 1972.

The options, options analysis, including risk assessment and officer preferred option, were set out in the exempt.

Resolved unanimously:

The resolution is set out in an minute exempt from publication by virtue of paragraph 3 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act, 1972.

Officer responsible for effecting the decision:

Chief Officer Planning & Climate Change

Reasons for making the decision:

The decision is consistent with the Council’s priorities. Exactly how the decision fits with Council priorities is set out in the exempt minute.

30.

Salt Ayre Data Centre

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Hamilton-Cox)

Report of Chief Officer Resources

Minutes:

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Hamilton-Cox)

Cabinet received a report from the Chief Officer Resources that approval to build a new sustainable hybrid data centre at Salt Ayre Leisure Centre for use by the Council and the potential to be used as a revenue generating asset. The report was exempt from publication by virtue of paragraph 3 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act, 1972.

The options, options analysis, including risk assessment and officer preferred option, were set out in the exempt.

Resolved unanimously:

The resolution is set out in an minute exempt from publication by virtue of paragraph 3 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act, 1972.

Officer responsible for effecting the decision:

Chief Officer Resources

Reasons for making the decision:

The decision is consistent with the Council’s priorities. Exactly how the decision fits with Council priorities is set out in the exempt minute.

31.

Canal Quarter Regeneration Phase III (Heron Works) - Progressing Development Design, Planning Approval, and Delivery

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Wilkinson)

Report of Chief Officer Sustainable Growth (report deferred)

Minutes:

The Chair advised the meeting that this report had been withdrawn from the agenda.

32.

Lancaster Canal Quarter Early Phase Housing Proposals – Progress Update and Future Delivery

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Wilkinson)

Report of Chief Officer Sustainable Growth (report published on 3.7.25)

Minutes:

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Caroline Jackson)

Cabinet received a report from the Chief Officer Sustainable Growth that outlined progress and detailed the potential next steps and options in taking forward the previously agreed early phase housing proposals under the council's approved Lancaster Canal Quarter Masterplan. The report was exempt from publication by virtue of paragraph 3 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act, 1972.

The options, options analysis, including risk assessment and officer preferred option, were set out in the exempt.

Resolved unanimously:

The resolution is set out in a minute exempt from publication by virtue of paragraph 3 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act, 1972.

Officer responsible for effecting the decision:

Chief Officer Sustainable Growth

Reasons for making the decision:

The decision is consistent with the Council’s priorities. Exactly how the decision fits with Council priorities is set out in the exempt minute.