Agenda and minutes

The Mayor welcomed everyone to the January Council meeting and wished everyone a happy New Year.

Councillors were then asked to indicate if they would agree to the bringing forward of Agenda Item 13 – English Devolution White Paper Update and Indicative Council Position, to be considered after Agenda Item 5, so as to ensure sufficient time for this important debate.  The consent of the meeting was granted.

Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of Councillors Josh Allen, Joyce Plummer, Kath Pratt and Ethan Rawcliffe.  It was noted that Councillor Kimberley Whitehead would be delayed for a short while at the start of the meeting.

There were no declarations of interest or dispensations submitted.

a)    Mayor

b)    Leader of the Council

c)    Chief Executive

The Mayor made the following announcements:

1)         Hyndburn’s Green Spaces

The Mayor announced that he was proud that the Council was working in partnership with Hyndburn Prospects Foundation.  Hyndburn had rich heritage of improving its open spaces.  In the 1970s, extensive tree planting was undertaken on the Coppice.  Since then a vast woodland had matured.  Across the Borough there were woodland walks and splendid recreational facilities.  The Borough boasted 11 Green Flag Awards for its parks and open spaces.  It had excellent sports and leisure facilities, including those operated independently such as the Accrington Stanley Community Sports Hub.  These assets had helped individuals to maintain their health and wellbieng during the COVID pandemic.  Prospects Foundation was currently involved in the Brooksdie Restoration Project, also known as Bury Meadows, in Stanhill Village.

There were lots of other activities taking place in the Borough to support its rich heritage and history.  The refurbishment of the Accrington Pals Memorial Gardens was just one such example.  The area had an amazing history of enterprise, particularly in respect of the cotton industry.  The following individuals had been central to Lancashire’s textile industry:

• Robert “Parsley” Peel (1723 – 1795) – calico printing
• Frederick Steiner  (1787- 1869) – steam printing
• William Blythe – chemical company for the textile industry (founded in 1845)
• Thomas Hargreaves (1771 – 1822) – owner of Broad Oak Printworks
• Frederick Gatty (1819 - 1888) - khaki dye
• John Mercer (1791 – 1866) – inventor of mercerised cotton.

Hyndburn today could benefit from reinvigorating its identity and perhaps could learn from its past.  After all, the industrial revolution started in this area.  The Mayor suggested a theme of ‘How could Hyndburn be more colourful in 2025?’ to launch its Culture and Heritage Strategy.

The Leader of the Council then made the following announcements:

2)         Accrington Victoria Hospital

A letter had been received from East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust (ELHT) following the motion submitted by Councillor Paul Cox at the last Council meeting.

The Chief Executive of the Trust. Martin Hodgson, had acknowledged the Council’s letter and thanked the Council for its comments about the future of Accrington Victoria Hospital. The letter explained the background to the closure of the building and the transfer of its services to other sites.  The building had been in a poor condition and was no longer fit for purpose.  The heating plant had also failed.  The moves were in accordance with appropriate risk assessments and all clinical services would be retained in Accrington and would not be diminished.

The Council’s suggestions about future investment in the hospital building warranted some further consideration.  The Trust had invited Council representatives to join a Steering Group meeting due to be held in February.  Councillor Dad confirmed that Councillors Fisher and Whitehead would attend this meeting along with Sarah Smith MP.  Ideally, the Council would like to see all services returned to that site in a new campus, along with improved services generally in Accrington.

Councillor Dad added that he had  ...  view the full minutes text for item 282.

To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the Council meeting held on 7^th November 2024 (attached).

The Minutes of the Council meeting held on 7^th November 2024 were provided.

In respect of Minute 224 – Question Time (Taxis), Councillor Walsh reported that she had met with the team at Lancashire County Council to discuss the provision of electric vehicle (EV) charging points in the Borough.  There was some focus on improving the current provision.  The Council’s Net Zero Working Group had some remaining concerns, but an open dialogue was underway.  The infrastructure was not currently in place to merit offering financial incentives to taxi operators to switch to EVs, but this would be looked at again in the future.

In connection with Minute 228(3) – Accrington Victoria Hospital, Councillor Paul Cox, noted the response of ELHT, as announced by Leader above, but was disappointed that the Trust had only now offered to talk to the Council, after the hospital closure decision had already been taken.  He expressed the view that the closure must have been planned a long time in advance.  Furthermore, he was not satisfied with the reasons for closure as stated in the letter.  He remained extremely disappointed by the outcome.

On a related point, Councillor Clare Pritchard reported that the Council had fought to retain health services in Accrington for a long time.  However, as a consequence of the relocation of services from Victoria Hospital to the Acorn Primary Care Centre, the Holly House Child Development Centre at that location, which provided services for children with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND), had been fragmented and relocated to other children’s centres.  Councillor Anderson spoke about her personal experience of using services at Holly House, when it had been based in Rishton.  She commented that travelling on public transport with children with SEND was often difficult and that a change to a new environment was not easy for the children involved.

Councillor Melissa Fisher commented that the Council would continue to exert pressure on the NHS Trust at the Steering Group meeting on 26^th February 2025.  However, it appeared that there was little urgency on the part of the Trust to address the concerns raised in connection with Accrington Victoria Hospital.  Nevertheless, the Council would continue to engage with the Trust.

Councillor Dave Parkins added that the residents of Huncoat had no local GP practice.  As such, Accrington Victoria Hospital had been a useful access point for health services.  He hoped that NHS services could be provided in Huncoat directly in the future.

In response to a question raised by Councillor Steven Smithson, the Leader of the Council indicated that there had been no reply to date from the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, The Rt Hon Wes Streeting MP, about the hospital closure.

Councillor Clegg expressed concern that Government funding for the NHS in Lancashire and South Cumbria was being diverted to fund new hospitals to replace Royal Preston Hospital and Royal Lancaster Infirmary.  As a result Hyndburn appeared to be losing out.  The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 283.

To deal with any questions submitted under Council Procedure Rule A2.2(vi).

Three eligible questions have been received (report attached).

Three eligible question had been received, which were set out in the report.

1)         Local Government Reorganisation

To the Leader of the Council (Councillor Munsif Dad BEM JP)

Submitted by Councillor Zak Khan

“Do you support the abolition of Hyndburn Borough Council, in favour of an East Lancashire Authority?”

In the light of the report included at Agenda Item 13 and with the consent of the meeting, Councillor Khan withdrew this question

The Mayor then read out the following questions:

2)         King George V Playing Fields

To the Deputy Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Housing and Communities (Councillor Melissa Fisher)

Submitted by Cllr Steven Smithson

“Is there an update on the King George V Playing Fields and when it will be brought back into use?”

Response

A written response provided by Councillor Whitehead (Portfolio Holder for Culture, Heritage and Arts) was read out by Councillor Fisher, a summary of which is as follows:

It was noted that there might be some increased interest in this matter due to the forthcoming by-election in the nearby Baxenden ward.

The drainage at the King George V site was in a poor condition, which meant that the pitches were not fit for purpose.  Overall, the playing fields needed significant investment.  The controlling group planned to bring the site back into use and was currently in discussions with interested parties.  It would not be appropriate at this stageof the negotiations to name those parties, but information would be released as soon as possible.  It was estimated that it might take around 18 months to implement plans for new drainage and to reinstate the playing surface.  The facilities could be back in use by September 2026.

Criticism was levelled at the previous Portfolio Holder for not progressing this matter sufficiently during their tenure.

Councillor Smithson asked a follow up question in which he indicated that money had been allocated in the 2024/25 Budget for drainage and a new boiler for the changing rooms.  He asked why the work had not already commenced.

Councillor Fisher responded that there was a gap in the funding available, which meant that the project could not have been started sooner.

3)      Oswaldtwistle Civic Theatre

To the Portfolio Holder for Sustainability and Families (Councillor Kate Walsh)

Submitted by Cllr Steven Smithson

“Is there an update on the Oswaldtwistle Civic Theatre?”

Response

Councillor Kate Walsh responded that an announcement on the Civic Theatre was imminent, but that the information was embargoed until the end of the month.  It was hoped to be able to deliver some good news at that time.

Councillor Smithson was pleased to hear the answer and asked a follow up question in which he reminded members that some £390k had been set aside in the 2024/25 Budget for the Civic Theatre.  He asked if a report could be provided to Cabinet on:

• how the above funding had been spent;
• what works had already been completed;
• what other works remained to be carried out;
• timescales for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 284.

Report attached.

Members considered a report of Councillor Munsif Dad BEM JP, Leader of the Council, providing a summary of the English Devolution White Paper (EDWP) published on the 16^th December 2024 and an indicative Council Position to the Government’s consultation.

Councillor Dad outlined the contents of the summary section of the report and the potential benefits of reorganisation / devolution and, in particular, the anticipated benefits of a Pennine Lancashire option.  He outlined the consultation process and overall timescales.  He also expressed a preference tor Lancashire to be included in the Devolution Priority Programme (DPP), so that this area could lead the way.

Councillor Dad and other Lancashire area council leaders had previously met with the Government Minister responsible.  The following three key questions, posed in November, could now be answered as indicated:

• Would reorganisation happen? – This would definitely go ahead;
• When would this occur? - The timetable was as set out in the report;
• How would this be implemented? – The outcome would depend on the details of the plan that the relevant stakeholders drew up.

The report set out a summary as follows:

The Government’s intention was that Local Government reorganisation would take place across England.  All two-tier areas, including Lancashire, were to be replaced by unitary authorities by either April 2027 or April 2028.

The Government expected new unitary authorities to cover population sizes of at least 500,000.  No upper limit had been set.  Populations of under 500,000 would be considered under specific circumstances.  500,000 had been set as the Government felt this was the minimum population required to achieve efficiencies, withstand financial shocks and provide quality of service.

There were two “paths” to reorganisation, either through the Devolution Priority Programme (DPP), which was fast track approach and aimed to have new local government structures in place by April 2027. Or, the non DPP areas (areas not on the devolution priority programmes) would be expected to have new local government structures by April 2028.

Councils (upper tier and unitary only) who wanted to take part in the DPP would have to have confirmed this to government by the 10^th January.

By the end of January, the Council should know whether or not Lancashire was on the DPP.

Mayoral elections would take place in 2026 (DPP areas) and 2027 (non DPP areas).

The Government expected all Councils in an affected area to work together to submit one proposal for reorganisation.  However, they understood that this might not be possible and would consider more than one proposal.

A formal invitation to submit reorganisation proposals would be issued to authorities in January.

Initial proposals for reorganisation would have to be submitted to the Government by March 2025.

Final proposals would have to be submitted by May 2025 (for those on the DPP) and Autumn 2025 (for those not on the DPP).

The Government would be responsible for public consultation on the proposals.  However, they emphasised  ...  view the full minutes text for item 285.

Report attached.

The Council considered a report of Councillor Munsif Dad BEM JP, Leader of the Council, informing elected members of the findings and recommendations from the recent Local Government Association Corporate Peer Challenge (CPC).  The full CPC report was provided as Appendix 1 to the covering report.

The report also informed elected members of the next steps and sought approval to the establishment of a cross-party working group to support and have oversight of the action plan.

Councillor Dad provided a brief verbal introduction to the report and was pleased to receive the report’s overall findings.  He also thanked all who had taken part in the process.

The Council had invited a team of senior local government councillors and officers to undertake a Local Government Association Corporate Peer Challenge, including a visit to Hyndburn between 29^th and 31^st October 2024.

A CPC was a comprehensive review of key finance, performance and governance information and formed a key part of the improvement and assurance framework for local government.  CPC assisted councils in meeting part of their Best Value duty, with the UK Government expecting all local authorities to have a CPC at least every five years.  Peer challenges were improvement focused, not inspections, and the process was not designed to provide an in-depth or technical assessment of plans and proposals.

The Peer Team

Peers, who were experienced elected members and officers, were at the heart of the peer challenge process and provided a ‘practitioner perspective’ and ‘critical friend’ challenge.  Peers took time away from their busy “day job” to contribute to improvement within the local government sector.  The peer team for Hyndburn Borough Council had comprised:

• Member Peer – Cllr Tricia Gilby, Leader, Chesterfield Borough Council;
• Member Peer – Cllr Simon Minas-Bound, Group Leader, Basingstoke & Deane Borough Council;
• Chief Executive Peer – Ian Miller, Chief Executive, Wyre Forest District Council;
• Officer Peer – Artemis Ansell, Director of Planning & Regeneration, Lichfield District Council and Lichfield West Midlands Traded Services;
• Officer Peer – Dominic Bradley, Director of Resources, Horsham District Council;
• LGA Peer – Alex Howell, Adviser - Devolution, Local Growth and Digital;
• Peer Challenge Manager – Anne Brinkhoff, LGA Associate; and
• Project Support Officer – Kristel Whittaker, LGA.

The peer team had prepared by reviewing a range of documents and information and had then spent three days on site at Hyndburn Borough Council, during which they had spoken to more than 110 people including a range of council staff, members and external stakeholders.  They had toured our Accrington Town Square regeneration projects, had visited the Raza Jamia Masjid mosque, and had attended a meeting of HBC’s Cabinet.

Findings and Recommendations

The team had presented their main findings and recommendations verbally to the Council on their final day here and had now provided a formal report.

The report included a number of recommendations, listed below, which were designed to help the Council improve and build on the many positive findings of the peer team.  Some of these positive findings  ...  view the full minutes text for item 286.

Report attached.

Members considered a report ofCouncillor Munsif Dad BEM JP, Leader of the Council, seeking approval to submit the Local Plan to the Secretary of State for examination.

Councillor Dad provided a summary of the main points within the report.

Local authorities had a statutory responsibility to identify their strategic priorities and had policies to address these in their development plan documents.  The development plan for an area was made up of the combination of strategic policies (that addressed the priorities for the area) and non-strategic policies that dealt with more detailed matters.

The development plan was at the heart of the planning system, with a requirement set in law that planning applications should be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicated otherwise.  Plans should set out a vision and a framework for the future development of the area and address needs and opportunities in relation to housing, the economy, community facilities and infrastructure, as well as conserving and enhancing the natural and historic environment.

The Hyndburn Local Plan 2040

The new Local Plan (Strategic Policies and Site Allocations) would set out the strategic vision, objectives and spatial strategy for the Borough, including strategic planning policies that would guide future development.  It established policies and guidance to ensure local development was built in accordance with the principles set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).  Covering the period 2021-40, the Local Plan set out the main areas for growth by identifying site allocations to meet development requirements of 194 dwellings per year (3,686 in total) and 70 hectares of employment land.  These figures were considered to be suitably ambitious, yet realistic insofar that they reflected actual delivery that had taken place in the Borough in recent years. 

Once adopted, the new Plan would replace the saved elements of the 1996 Local Plan, and the 2012 Core Strategy.  The two key documents representing the full development plan for Hyndburn would then become the new Local Plan (the subject of this report), together with the existing Development Management DPD 2018, which contained local (non-strategic) policies.  The Accrington Area Action Plan would also remain in force as part of the development plan for Hyndburn.

The emerging Local Plan had already been through 3 rounds of consultation at Regulation 18 stage, and 2 rounds of consultation at Regulation 19 stage.  The Regulation 19 consultation stage preceded the submission of the Local Plan (and all associated evidence base and other supporting material) to the Secretary of State.  Following submission, an Inspector from the Planning Inspectorate would be appointed to take the plan forward to Examination and subsequent adoption.  The version of the Local Plan consulted on at Regulation 19 stage was intended to represent the settled view of the Council on what the adopted Plan should contain and that the authority believed to be sound and ready for ‘Examination’.  It was also known as the “Pre-submission” or “Publication” Plan. 

Table illustrating key stages of Local Plan preparation.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 287.

Report attached.

Members considered a report of Councillors Jodi Clements, Chair of the Communities and Wellbeing Overview & Scrutiny Committee and Stephen Button, Chair of the Resources Overview & Scrutiny Committee, in connection with recommendations for the appointment of co-opted members to their respective committees.

Councillor Button announced the following:

He noted that members would have read the joint report of the Chairs of the Communities and Wellbeing OSC and Resources OSC.  As Chair of the Resources OSC, he moved the recommendations in the report, subject to a revised recommendation at Paragraph 2.3.

On reflection, he considered that the Resources OSC would benefit from the contributions of a young person, as originally proposed, and accordingly moved the following revised recommendation at Paragraph 2.3 of the report:

“2.3   That Council approves the appointment of Christine Heys as a co-opted member to the Resources Overview and Scrutiny Committee and the reservation of the remaining vacant co-optee position on the Committee for a young person (between the age of 18 to 25 years)”

He invited councillors to join him in supporting this positive move to engage with local young people.

The report indicated that the Council’s Constitution, Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rule C2 stated:

“Up to four members of the public may be appointed to each Overview and Scrutiny Committee as non-voting co-optees, if they are deemed to have relevant experience of matters falling within the remit of that Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

(i)         Co-optees may be appointed following nomination by a councillor or following an application received directly from a member of the public.

(ii)        Applications received directly from the public will be considered first at the relevant Overview and Scrutiny Committee. The Committee will consider the knowledge and experience of the applicant relevant to the terms of reference or work programme of the Committee. If the majority of the Overview and Scrutiny members support the appointment of the applicant, the proposed appointment will be presented to Council for approval.

(iii)      Nominations received from councillors will be presented to the Council for approval, if supported by the Chair of the relevant Overview and Scrutiny Committee. In reaching a decision, the Council will consider the knowledge and experience of the nominee relevant to the terms of reference or work programme of the Committee.”

The Communities and Wellbeing Overview & Scrutiny Committee had previously appointed two co-optee members, Jean Battle and Jackie Rawstron with two vacant co-optee positions remaining.

The Communities and Wellbeing Overview & Scrutiny Committee had taken a view that a young person would provide greater balance to discussion and be more representative of the community and therefore, had recommended that one co-optee position was reserved for this purpose.

The Communities and Wellbeing Overview & Scrutiny Committee, therefore, still had one vacant co-optee position remaining with three nominations received for the post.  At the meeting held on 8^th October, it was considered that there was insufficient information on the three nominees to make a fully informed recommendation.  Each  ...  view the full minutes text for item 288.

Report attached.

Members considered a report of Councillor Noordad Aziz, Deputy Leader and Portfolio Holder for Transformation, Education and Skills, in respect of recent executive decisions taken as a matter of urgency where the decision could not be delayed until the next meeting of the Cabinet and which had, therefore, been exempted from the Call-In Procedure

Councillor Aziz provided a short introduction to the report.  He also indicated that a member of the public had submitted some questions directly to him about one of the decisions, to which he would respond.  The responses are provided under the relevant heading below.

Paragraph B16 of the Executive Procedure Rules provided that urgent executive decisions which could not be delayed until the next meeting of the executive, or executive committee (as the case may be), might be taken by the relevant chief officer after consultation with the following:

• Leader;
• Deputy Leader;
• Relevant portfolio holder (if any) or any other cabinet member if there was no relevant portfolio holder in respect of the decision in question;
• The Mayor pursuant to Rule C14 of the Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rules;
• Plus one of the following:

o    the Chief Executive; or

o    the Deputy Chief Executive (in the absence of the Chief Executive or if the Chief Executive was the decision taker) or

o    the Monitoring Officer (in the absence of the Chief Executive and Deputy Chief Executive or if one was absent and the other was the decision taker)

Rule C14 of the Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rules set out the provisions allowing for a period of Call-In by members of a relevant Overview and Scrutiny Committee, in respect of certain executive decisions.  That Paragraph included the detailed procedures which supported this arrangement.

Notwithstanding the above Rule, Paragraph C14(i) stated that the call-in procedure should not apply where the decision being taken by the executive was urgent.  A decision would be urgent if any delay likely to be caused by the call in process would seriously prejudice the Council’s or the public interest.  The record of the decision and notice by which it was made public should state whether in the opinion of the decision making person or body, the decision was an urgent one, and therefore not subject to call-in and the reason for that opinion.  The Mayor would have to agree both that the decision proposed was reasonable in all the circumstances and to it being treated as a matter of urgency prior to the decision being taken.  Provision was also made for consent to be obtained in the absence of the Mayor.

In addition to the above, Paragraph C14(i) stated that decisions taken as a matter of urgency would have to be reported to the next available meeting of the Council, together with the reasons for urgency.  Previously, compliance with this Rule had been actioned by reference to the Cabinet minutes reported to Council, which included a list of any urgent decisions taken.  However, it was considered that this did  ...  view the full minutes text for item 289.

To receive the Minutes of the Cabinet meeting held on 30^th October and 4^th December 2024 (attached).

Rules of Debate

·         The Leader of the Council will move the Minutes, the Deputy Leader of the Council will second the Minutes.

·         Non-executive Members will be invited to make comment or ask questions on the Minutes (5 Minutes).

·         Cabinet Members will be invited to make comments and respond to any points raised (5 Minutes).

·         The Leader of the Council will be given up to 15 Minutes to respond and to answer any questions raised.

The minutes of the meeting of the Cabinet held on 30^th October and 4^th December 2024 were submitted.

The following matters were raised.

In respect of Minute 255 – Litter and Fly-Tipping, Councillor Smithson asked if skip days had replaced beat sweeps and what criteria were in use to book a skip day.  In respect of the sub-heading on the Waste Transfer Station, he asked if a letter could be sent to Lancashire County Council seeking a further extension to the use of Whinney Hill for waste disposal.

Councillor Dad responded that the Council was still working on the waste transfer issue and had discussed prices for possible use of the Suez facility in Darwen.  Councillor Whitehead commented that the controlling group had asked Lancashire County Council about waste disposal on several occasions, including at a meeting yesterday, but no firm decision had been forthcoming.

Councillor Eaves reported that skip days were not intended to replace beat sweeps.  Any requests for skip days should be submitted to Mick Coyne, Waste Services Manager, with the Portfolio Holder copied into the proposed date.  Councillor Aziz noted that most townships might have a particular ‘grot spot’ and that all councillors could request a skip day.  This might need to be built into future Budgets.  Councillor Whitehead indicated that beat sweeps had previously been led by the Police.

Councillor Khan commented that he had posed a number of questions during Cabinet meetings and to Portfolio Holders directly, but that in some instances questions raised at the Cabinet remained unanswered.  Councillor Dad confirmed that every effort would be made to respond to questions raised at Cabinet.

In respect of Minute 255 – Taxi MOT Testing Station, Councillor Dad reminded members that the current administration was considering the establishment of an independent MOT testing station in Hyndburn.  A report had now been commissioned and discussions were moving forward.

Resolved                                    -    That the Minutes be received and noted.

To receive the Minutes of committees, as set out below:

Rules of Debate

·         The Leader of the Council will introduce the Minutes as a whole.

·         Any Member may raise any issue from the Minutes; the Chair of the relevant Committee may respond (5 Minutes).

·         The Leader of the Council will close the debate (5 Minutes).

The Minutes of the following meetings were submitted:

Resolved                                    -    That the Minutes be received and noted.

Report attached.

Rules of Debate

·         Each motion shall be debated for no more than 20 minutes before being put to the vote.

·         No more than one and a half hours in totality shall be allowed at each meeting for the debate of all motions.

1)         Winter Fuel Allowance Support

The following motion was proposed by Councillor Marlene Haworth and seconded by Councillor Danny Cassidy, with support from signatories Councillors Josh Allen, Loraine Cox, Zak Khan and Kath Pratt, under Council Procedure Rule A9:

“The impact of withdrawing the Winter Fuel Allowance for pensioners across the country will be felt hard particularly in Hyndburn.

The starts of the year are often the coldest, putting our older, vulnerable residents at risk.

Some local authorities are using the Household Support Fund to cover the shortfall for their most vulnerable residents.

This motion makes a request to the Cabinet to authorise widening the eligibility of the Household Support Fund to provide for extra support this winter.  As well, to write to Sarah Smith MP and the Chancellor urging them to reverse the cut.”

The following AMENDMENT was moved by Councillor Noordad Aziz and seconded by Councillor Scott Brerton:

• The insertion of the word “some” between the words “for” and “pensioners” in sentence 1;

• The insertion of the following words after sentence 1,as part of the same paragraph:

“However, the Council has undertaken an exercise to increase the uptake of Pension Credit in the Borough and thereby shielding the poorest pensioners in the Borough from this cut.”;

• The deletion of sentences 3 and 4, commencing  “Some local authorities…” and ending “…reverse the cut.”;

• The insertion of new sentences 3 and 4 as follows:

“The Council recognises that Hyndburn’s Household Support Fund criteria allows for all residents to apply to cover the shortfall in their finances.

We also resolve to write to Sarah Smith MP and the Chancellor where possible to help the poorest in our society.”.

The Mayor asked the permission of the meeting for a brief adjournment, which was granted.

The meeting recommenced at 9.18pm.

Councillor Khan spoke against the amendment and commented that take up of the Household Support Fund was low.  Councillors Fazal, Younis, Smithson and Cassidy also spoke against the amendment.

Councillors Pritchard, Clements, Clegg and Fisher spoke in favour of the amendment.

Councillor Anderson expressed disappointment that a cross-party statement could not be agreed. She would have preferred the motion to be deferred to try to enable a consensus to be reached.  Councillor Gilbert indicated that he provided military style survival blankets for charities, which councillors could access thorough him in an emergency on behalf of their residents.

Councillor Haworth replied to the amendment asking members not to support it, to enable the original motion to be adopted.

On being put to the VOTE the AMENDMENT was CARRIED

Whereupon the substantive motion was put.

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 16.5, six members present requested a recorded vote, the outcome of which was a follows:

For

Councillors Anderson, Aziz, Booth, Brerton, Button. Clegg, Clements, Dad, Dawson, Eaves, Fisher, Gilbert, Parkins, Pritchard, Walsh and Whitehead.

Against

Councillors Addison, Cassidy, L Cox, Edwards, Fazal, Haworth, Khan, Smithson, Walker and Younis

Abstain

Councillors P Cox,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 292.