Agenda item

To consider the report of the Director for Economic Growth & Regeneration  (the report was marked ‘to follow’ and published on 20 August 2021)

The Monitoring Officer reminded Members that whilst the press and public had not been excluded from the meeting the documents were still confidential and Members needed to be mindful of the detail they went into during consideration of the item.

 

The Leader introduced a report to enable Council to determine whether to agree that Lancaster City Council entered into a legally binding Collaboration Agreement with Lancashire County Council for the purposes of recovering funds through the use of planning powers (granted under S.106 Town & Country Planning Act 1990) to repay Lancashire County Council for the forward provision of infrastructure related items pursuant to the delivery of the South Lancaster Growth Catalyst (HIF). 

 

The Leader responded to a number of questions from Members before proposing:

 

“That members of the City Council do NOT enter into a legally binding Collaboration Agreement with Lancashire County Council as requested by the officer’s report but move with all speed to enable the sustainable development of housing in south Lancaster as agreed in the Local Plan.”

 

The proposition was seconded by Councillor Frea.  A debate followed during which Councillor Dowding, seconded by Councillor Dant proposed the following amendment:

 

“We will instead instruct our officers to start work immediately on an Alternative Plan to ensure that development of truly sustainable housing as outlined in the current Local Plan is facilitated in south Lancaster, which is neither car nor new motorway-access  dependent. This would include among other measures

 

·        Allocating the £ 4.6m in the City Council capital budget currently earmarked for HIF related activities,  to enabling such works

·        Working with the highways authority i.e. County Council to look to reduce Galgate traffic and traffic flow problem and the associated air pollution, emissions with a package of local solutions in Galgate

·        Work with partners including Lancaster University to address Highways England’s concerns about back up on the motorway through a package of measures to reduce, rather than re-direct motorway traffic

·        A sustainable transport and access plan including enhanced cycle and bus infrastructure until such time that the Local Plan is reviewed.”

 

This was accepted as a friendly amendment by the proposer and seconder of the original proposition.

 

In accordance with Rule 10 of the Council Procedure rules the meeting adjourned at this point and reconvened at 8.15pm.

 

On reconvening Councillor Dowding proposed that the press and public be temporarily excluded from the meeting in order that confidential financial information could be discussed. The proposal was seconded by Councillor Dant and when put to the vote the proposal was carried although Councillor Wood asked that it be recorded that he had voted against excluding the press and public.

 

Resolved:

 

That the press and public be excluded from the meeting at this point.

 

After further debate in private session Councillor Penny proposed, seconded by Councillor Sinclair that the public be re-admitted to the meeting and with the agreement of the meeting the press and public were re-admitted.

 

Resolved:

 

That the press and public be re-admitted to the meeting at this point.

 

Debate continued until Councillor Budden proposed, seconded by Councillor Heath, “that the question be now put”.  The Mayor agreed that the item had been sufficiently discussed and when put to the vote the procedural motion was carried.  The Leader was invited to summarise and read out the amended proposal.  In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 19.4 a recorded vote was then taken.

 

Votes were recorded as follows:

 

For the proposition:  Councillors Austen-Baker, Bannon, Brookes, Budden, Dant, Dowding, Frea, Greenwell, Hamilton-Cox, Jackson (Caroline), Jackson (Joan), Lenox, Penny, Pritchard, Sinclair, Stubbins, Whitworth, Wild & Young (19).

Against the proposition: Councillors Anderson, Anderton, Biddulph, Black, Boyd-Power, Bryning, Cleet, Dennison, Evans, Goodwin, Greenall, Guilding, Hanson, Hartley, Heath, Jenkins, King, Knight (Geoff), Knight (Sarah), Lewis, Matthews, Parr, Redfern, Robinson, Thomas, Thornberry, Whitaker, Whitehead, Wood, Yates (30).

 

The Mayor declared the amended proposition to be lost.

 

Councillor Hanson then proposed, seconded by Councillor Lewis:

 

“(1) That Lancaster City Council enters into a legally binding Collaboration Agreement with Lancashire County Council, for the purposes of recovering funds through the use of planning powers (granted under S.106 Town & Country Planning Act 1990.) to repay Lancashire County Council for the forward provision of infrastructure related items pursuant to the delivery of the South Lancaster Growth Catalyst (HIF).

 
(2) To give effect to the collaboration agreement, Council delegates negotiating any non-material and positive changes and signing of the agreement to the Chief Executive, in conjunction with the Council’s legal advisors.”

 

By way of an amendment Councillor Lewis then proposed that the following be added to the end of recommendation (2):

 

“That the Chief Executive will seek to negotiate changes to the collaboration agreement to:

a)     to support both councils in their shared priority of protecting the environment and achieving net carbon zero by 2030

b)     support local businesses and jobs through the delivery of this project to build community wealth

c)      develop a joined-up and shared consultation plan so residents have greater access to information and can see how the project partners are responding to their questions and concerns.”

The amendment was seconded by Councillor Black and debated before a recorded vote was requested on the amendment in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 19.4.

 

For the proposition:  Councillors Anderson, Anderton, Biddulph, Black, Boyd-Power, Brookes, Bryning, Cleet, Dennison, Dowding, Evans, Goodwin, Greenall, Guilding, Hamilton-Cox, Hanson, Hartley, Heath, Jackson (Caroline), Jenkins, King, Knight (Geoff), Knight (Sarah), Lewis, Matthews, Parr, Redfern, Robinson, Thomas, Thornberry, Whitaker, Whitehead, Wood, Yates (34)

Abstentions:  Councillors Austen-Baker, Bannon, Budden, Dant, Frea, Greenwell, Jackson (Joan), Lenox, Penny, Pritchard, Sinclair, Stubbins, Whitworth, Wild, Young (15)

 

The Mayor declared the amendment to be carried and debate continued. Councillor Whitehead proposed a further amendment to the substantive motion to add the following recommendations as recommendation (3) & (4):

 

“That delegated authority be given to the Chief Executive in conjunction with the Council’s legal advisors, to negotiate and agree changes to the collaboration agreement in relation to:-

i)       The inclusion of a collar and cap arrangement representing the lower of a percentage of the overrun, or a fixed amount for the City Council’s contribution to the Shortfall.

ii)      Reduction of the fixed amount in (i) above 

iii)    An overarching review mechanism, which includes an annual review evaluating the risk associated with the need for a Shortfall payment and an appropriate trigger mechanism. 

 

That delegated authority be given to the Section 151 Officer to make appropriate budgetary arrangements to reflect the financial implications of the Collaboration Agreement.”

 

In accordance with Council Procedural Rule 17.10 (C) Councillor Woods proposed, seconded by Councillor Robinson that the press and public be temporarily excluded from the meeting at this time to allow enable discussion on confidential financial information and, when put to the vote, the proposal was clearly carried.

 

Resolved:

 

That the press and public be excluded from the meeting at this point.

 

Members then debated the amendment which was carried when put to the vote.

 

In accordance with the constitution Councillor Wood proposed that ‘the question be now put’ and the closure motion was seconded by Hartley and clearly carried when put to the vote.

 

With the agreement of Members, the Mayor confirmed that the press and public would be re-admitted at this point for the conclusion of the meeting.

 

Resolved:

 

That the press and public be re-admitted at this point in the meeting.

 

The Mayor confirmed that a recorded vote would be held on the substantive motion.

 

For the proposition: Councillors Anderson, Anderton, Biddulph, Black, Boyd-Power, Bryning, Cleet, Dennison, Evans, Goodwin, Greenall, Greenwell, Guilding, Hanson, Hartley, Heath, Jenkins, King, Knight (Geoff), Knight (Sarah), Lewis, Matthews, Parr, Redfern, Robinson, Thomas, Thornberry, Whitaker, Whitehead, Wood, Yates (31).

Against the proposition: Councillors Austen-Baker, Bannon, Brookes, Budden, Dant, Dowding, Frea, Hamilton-Cox, Jackson (Caroline), Jackson (Joan), Lenox, Penny, Stubbins, Whitworth,  Wild, Young (16).

Abstentions: Pritchard, Sinclair (2).

 

The Mayor declared the substantive motion to be carried.

 

Resolved:

 

(1)         That Lancaster City Council enters into a legally binding Collaboration Agreement with Lancashire County Council, for the purposes of recovering funds through the use of planning powers (granted under S.106 Town & Country Planning Act 1990.) to repay Lancashire County Council for the forward provision of infrastructure related items pursuant to the delivery of the South Lancaster Growth Catalyst (HIF). 

 

(2)         To give effect to the collaboration agreement, Council delegates negotiating any non-material and positive changes and signing of the agreement to the Chief Executive, in conjunction with the Council’s legal advisors.

 

That the Chief Executive will seek to negotiate changes to the collaboration agreement to:

(a)   to support both councils in their shared priority of protecting the environment and achieving net carbon zero by 2030

(b)   support local businesses and jobs through the delivery of this project to build community wealth

(c)  develop a joined-up and shared consultation plan so residents have greater access to information and can see how the project partners are responding to their questions and concerns.

 

(3)                 That delegated authority be given to the Chief Executive in conjunction with the Council’s legal advisors, to negotiate and agree changes to the collaboration agreement in relation to:-

 

                           i.          The inclusion of a collar and cap arrangement representing the lower of a percentage of the overrun, or a fixed amount for the City Council’s contribution to the Shortfall.

                          ii.          Reduction of the fixed amount in (i) above 

                         iii.          An overarching review mechanism, which includes an annual review evaluating the risk associated with the need for a Shortfall payment and an appropriate trigger mechanism. 

 

(4)                 That delegated authority be given to the Section 151 Officer to make appropriate budgetary arrangements to reflect the financial implications of the Collaboration Agreement.