Agenda and minutes

Apologies were submitted on behalf of Councillor Munsif Dad BEM JP, who was delayed for a short time at the start of the meeting.

There were no reported declarations of interest or dispensations at this stage of the meeting

NOTE: Several interests were declared by Councillor Munsif Dad BEM JP later in the meeting and are recorded in last paragraph before Minute 251.

To approve the Minutes of the last meeting of Cabinet held on 12^th January 2022.

The minutes of the meeting of the Cabinet held on 12^th January 2022 were submitted for approval as a correct record.

Resolved                                    -    That the Minutes be received and approved as a correct record.

To receive the minutes of the meetings of the following bodies:-

The minutes of the following meeting were submitted:

• Regeneration and Housing Panel - 14th December 2021

Resolved                                    -    That the Minutes be received and noted.

To receive verbal reports from each of the Portfolio Holders, as appropriate.

There were no verbal reports provided on this occasion.

Report attached.

Members considered a report of Councillor Joyce Plummer, Portfolio Holder for Resources, outlining the findings of a recent consultation conducted by the Licensing Manager regarding the possible removal of limits on the numbers of hackney carriage licences issued in the Borough in favour of wheelchair accessible vehicles.

Councillor Plummer indicated that the number of hackney carriage licences in Hyndburn was currently limited to 59.  However, to maintain this limit a survey was needed every three years to provide evidence that there was no unmet demand.  The survey was due in 2022.  Complaints had been received in recent times from customers struggling to find a taxi at night.  The result of a stakeholder consultation had demonstrated that there was currently unmet demand.  If the limit were to be scrapped, any new licences would only be available for wheelchair accessible vehicles.  The consultation had also included the taxi trade and of the 26 responses received 14 were against the removal of restrictions.  However, if a formal Unmet Demand Survey were to be carried out, this would cost around £12k with the cost normally being borne by the taxi trade themselves.  Given the evidence obtained so far that there was unmet demand, this would seem to be an unnecessary cost.  The Police had also been consulted and agreed with the proposal to remove the limit on the grounds of public safety.

Councillor Perter Britcliffe, Joint Deputy Leader of the Opposition, commented that this appeared to be a significant shift in policy and queried whether the move would actually increase the numbers of taxi vehicles on the road.  He suggested a more cautious approach, perhaps by raising the limit to 70 hackney carriage vehicles.  Members discussed the impact of the pandemic on the trade and loss of many private hire taxi drivers to working on take away food deliveries, such as via Just Eat or Uber Eats.  This was believed to be, in part, as a result of the low fares in the private hire sector, making alternative work more attractive.  The Council could not set the prices of fares in the private hire sector.  However, it was possible that market forces would eventually cause an increase fares in the private hire sector leading to more drivers.  The Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder emphasised that the limit in hackney carriage licences could only be raised if a costly survey was undertaken and the outcome showed that there was no unmet demand.  However, current evidence suggested that there was unmet demand.

Councillor Marlene Howarth, Leader of the Opposition, commented that there appeared to be insufficient taxi ranks for hackney carriages and that these were often blocked by unauthorised vehicles.  If more licences were granted there would be nowhere for additional taxis to park.  She mentioned that take away food deliveries might wane as the pandemic subsided, returning drivers to the taxi trade.  She asked if out-of-borough licenced taxis could be prevented from picking up a fare in Hyndburn.  Jane Ellis, Head of Legal  ...  view the full minutes text for item 249.

Report attached.

Members considered a report of Councillor Joyce Plummer, Portfolio Holder for Resources, seeking approval for a Smart Working Strategy.

Councillor Plummer indicated that staff had continued to work throughout the pandemic and that this had presented big challenges, particularly during lockdown and with other restrictions in place.  Most staff had been able to come into the workplace.  Others had set up desks at home and were working in a different way.  ICT had supported staff being able to work from home.  The Government’s advice to work from home during the Omicron wave had now been lifted.  Overall it was felt that hybrid working had been successful with improved business continuity arrangements and improved sickness absence management.  The draft Smart Working Strategy set out the proposed priorities for the Council and its workforce.  In the longer term this could provide benefits in terms of reduced journeys, more virtual meetings and a review of the Council’s property assets.

Councillor Marlene Haworth commented that the Conservative Group had some concerns about the strategy presented.  She indicated that there were difficulties in contacting officers within certain teams and sometimes responses were slow.  Any delay made the councillor’s relationship with the public more difficult.  At Prime Minister’s Question Time today Boris Johnson MP had indicated that all COVID restrictions were likely to be lifted in around one month.  There was a feeling that introducing a more flexible working strategy at the moment would be moving too quickly.  It remained important for councillors to meet with officers face to face.  There was broad consent for the ethos of smart working, but not at this pace.  It was reported that some staff who could not work from home because of their roles were already critical of those who could do so.  Also, the on-going use of meetings on Zoom or Teams did not allow for natural communication and personal contact.  The Leader commented that all modern employers were shifting towards a better work-life balance for their employees.  This improved productivity and helped to recruit staff.  Many frontline roles within the Council such as Refuse Collection of Grass Cutting would be unaffected.  However, the Council now operated in a digital world which allowed more flexibilities in some service areas.

Councillor Britcliffe added that there was a case for returning to normal working arrangements and for meeting face to face.  There was also a need to support the local lunchtime and retail economy by repopulating offices in the town centre.  The Leader commented that before the pandemic staff might be unavailable for drop in visits due to other meeting commitments and appointments should normally have been made.  On the question of local businesses, those private sector staff working from home rather than in the city would add to the local economy, balancing up any loss of footfall from Council staff.  The proposed Manchester congestion charge might also make journeys to the city less attractive.  Councillor Plummer commented that Members could use the telephone functionality on Microsoft Teams to contact  ...  view the full minutes text for item 250.

Report attached.

Members considered a report of Councillor Joyce Plummer, Portfolio Holder for Resources, seeking formal approval to enter into relevant legal agreements to release funding in connection with the delivery of the Self Isolation Pilot Programme.

Councillor Plummer indicated that during the pandemic government funding had been used to good effect to achieve lasting benefits around health and wellbeing and supporting community groups.  A bid for a Self-Isolation Pilot Programme had recently been successful and had secured around £54k.  The programme would focus on young people through a combination of innovative projects and small grants available to third sector organisations.  The programme would build upon some of the achievements of the Community Champions Fund work and would involve joint delivery by the Council, Hyndburn Leisure and Hyndburn and Ribble Valley Council for Voluntary Service (CVS).

Approval of the report was not deemed a key decision.

Reasons for Decision

Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council was the lead authority in receipt of 2.5 million pounds of funding from the Department of Health and Social Care for the delivery of the Self-Isolation Pilot Programme.  They were leading the Programme on behalf of the Upper Tier and District Authorities from whom proposals had been received for individual projects to support individuals through self-isolation resulting from COVID-19.

The Council had been invited to put a proposal forward for a Self-Isolation Pilot Programme in autumn 2021 and had recently been notified that the funding for this had been approved, subject to reaching a formal legal agreement to accept the funding, which outlined the Council’s obligations in respect of the project.  The amount of funding which would be awarded to the Council was £54,540.

The Council’s proposal, which the funding would allow to be implemented, covered 3 main strands:

(i)    Producing marketing assets aimed at young people around self-isolation:  Current information regarding isolation was readily available but not engaging for young people or created with them in mind.  To have an impact the authority had learnt engagement work was key, but better tools and resources could reach people in a way that counted.  The Council would procure external support to create new assets, including using “gamification” methods to increase participation and engagement.

(ii)   The delivery of an “Isolation Station extension” project via Hyndburn Leisure:  This would allow people to engage in activities which created a more positive self-isolation experience, and would learn new ways to build activity and healthy eating into their lifestyle.  Hyndburn Leisure would provide and promote free access to Hyndburn’s Mywellness App, providing on demand activity classes and bespoke exercise sessions.

(iii)  Grant scheme via Hyndburn and Ribble Valley CVS:  This scheme aimed to support voluntary and community sector organisations to expand or deliver new services to increase engagement with young people and people with a learning difficulty and to demonstrate their ability to react flexibly, at pace, to support the Hyndburn community.  It would deliver £15,000 funding to be distributed via a grant scheme to voluntary and community sector organisations who  ...  view the full minutes text for item 251.

Report attached.

Members considered a report of Councillor Miles Parkinson OBE, Leader of the Council, which presented two updated documents: a draft revised Statement of Community Involvement; and a draft revised Local Development Scheme, for consideration and approval.  Both were documents which the Council had to produce in relation to its planning functions and related to the processes rather than the content of Local Plans.  These two updates had been produced in anticipation of the upcoming public consultation on the emerging Local Plan (Strategic Policies and Site Allocations).  A further report on the Local Plan and the public consultation would be brought to Members in due course.

The Leader outlined key elements of the report.  The draft Statement of Community Involvement updated the version adopted in June 2018 and set out how and when the Council would engage local communities in producing the Local Plan and in determining planning applications.  It was updated to reflect changes since adoption in relation to legislation, regulations, guidance and progress with the Local Plan.  The revised Local Development Scheme set out an up to date timetable for the production of documents within, and associated to, the Development Plan, otherwise referred to as the Local Plan.  A summary of the timeline was set out at p.101 of the Agenda.  This was a very lengthy process, although the Government was considering shortening the timetable in the future.  The final Local Plan document was expected to be adopted by the Council late in 2023 or early in 2024.

Approval of the report was not deemed a key decision.

Reasons for Decision

Statement of Community Involvement

The Council had a duty to prepare a Statement of Community Involvement (SCI).  This had to be updated at least every five years, or sooner if circumstances had changed since the last SCI was produced.

An SCI had first been adopted in 2006 to reflect the requirements of the new plan-making system introduced by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and reflected the relevant provisions at the time in relation to both plan-making and determination of planning applications.  The SCI had then been revised in 2018 to reflect changes in legislation, such as amendments to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and new guidance on Neighbourhood Planning.

This latest SCI had been revised to reflect the most recent NPPF (published in 2021) and the latest timetable for the production of the Hyndburn Local Plan.

Local Development Scheme

The Council also had a duty to prepare a Local Development Scheme (LDS) which had to publicise the intended timetable for producing the Local Plan.  The LDS should be published on the Council’s website and be kept up to date.  Reporting of progress against the LDS was made in the Council’s annual Authority Monitoring Report and was an important way of keeping communities informed of plan-making activity.

The Council’s last LDS had been published in June 2018, covering the period of plan preparation up to August 2021.  During this time the Council had completed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 252.

Report attached.

Councillor Joyce Plummer, Portfolio Holder for Resources, provided a report on the Financial Position as at December 2021 and the financial forecast outturn position for the Accounting Year 2021/22.

Councillor Plummer highlighted the following issues in connection with the report:-

With 9 months of the year gone the Council was forecasting a small positive variance of £123k by the end of the financial year.  COVID-19 had supressed income for the year, especially in connection with the Market Hall, where rent concessions had been maintained.  Income for commercial lettings was also low.  There were also other cost pressures on the Council, including the price of energy.

Councillor Britcliffe considered that the half-day closing of the Market Hall on Wednesday afternoons was outdated and that nationally spending on Wednesdays outperformed spending on Mondays.  The Leader of the Council responded that the Levelling-Up Fund Bid, which was mentioned in the Capital Budget item, outlined the stakeholders’ vision for investment in the Market Hall, which might include a mixture of both the daytime and night-time economy.  The Partnership Board would look at the options for the future, which might involve engaging a new operator for the Market Hall.

Approval of the report was not deemed a key decision.

Reasons for Decision

The spend for the first 9 months of the financial year to the end of December 2021 was £8,572,000 compared to a Budget of £9,350,000 giving a positive variance of £778,000 over the first 9 months of the year.

The current forecast spend to the end of the financial year in March 2022 was £11,104,000 compared to a Budget of £11,227,000.  This forecast produced a positive variance of £123,000 by the end of the financial year.

The Council had received additional financial support from Lancashire County Council (LCC) to meet the cost of continuing COVID-19 pressures over the second half of the year.  This would allow the Council to meet its current forecast spend in relation to COVID-19 activities for the remainder of the year.

So far since the spike in cases caused by the Omicron variant, the Council had been able to provide the support the local community required within its current funding envelop and therefore unless there was a dramatic swing upwards in COVID-19 cases over the last 2 months of the financial year, the authority would expect to maintain this position.  Any unspent balances of specific COVID-19 funding would be carried forward into the New Year and used to continue to support the local community as necessary.

The Budget forecast included large elements of expenditure and funding in connection with COVID-19.  As this was a new area of budget management, controls and management of the expenditure and income was not at the same high standard as for the Council’s normal budget expenditure.  There was, therefore, a higher degree of risk around these figures in the forecasts made.  Accountancy staff and Management were working to improve the thoroughness and accuracy of these figures.

The report included more detailed commentary  ...  view the full minutes text for item 253.

Report attached.

Councillor Joyce Plummer, Portfolio Holder for Resources, provided a report to inform Cabinetof the 3-year projections of income and spending for the Council ahead of formulating its 2022/23 Revenue and Capital Budgets.

Councillor Plummer highlighted a number of key issues within the Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) report, as follows:-

• The report set out the financial position of the Council for the next few years.
• The information would help the Council to set its Budget and identified its medium term prospects.
• A key aim was to provide stability year on year.
• Forecasting was difficult, in part due to austerity and reductions in public spending.  COVID-19 had added a further dimension to complexity around forecasting.
• It was not yet clear if the Government would reform local government finances and any impact could be positive or negative.
• The 2021 Announcement of the Local Government Financial Settlement had indicated that some funding would be provided, but no future commitments had been made, meaning that the approach could change in 2023/24.  If there was no change the Council would have to make savings in 2023/24, but would then have a small surplus.
• Projections around growth in the Council Tax Base were good, but if there were changes to Business Rates Retention rules the Council could have to make large savings.
• Further clarity was expected in the autumn 2022, which potentially might identify no reform of finances.

In summary, there was a degree of uncertainty in the projections.  The Leader of the Council commented that the MTFS was a very understandable document given the subject matter.  Hyndburn had consistently kept its Council Tax bills below the rate of inflation and was one of only seven authorities in the country to achieve this.  The authority needed to maintain reserves at a minimum of £2M.  Government financial support was worth around £1.5M to the Council but, by way of contrast, in 2010 the level of support had been around £7.1M.  The Council might have to make savings of around £45k in 2023/24 to balance the Budget.  The Council collected around £16M-£17M in Business Rates, but was only allowed to keep around 25% of that income.  Future commercial growth at Frontier Park, Altham and Whitebirk estates, along with additional housing developments, should help the Council’s financial position.

Approval of the report was not a key decision.

Reason for decision

The Cabinet required an update on its medium term financial outlook ahead of setting the Budget for 2022/23 and determining the level of Council Tax for the new financial year.  This report also ensured those decisions were taken with a view to the overall position of the Council going forward and were not limited to a narrow one-year perspective.

The substantive report included the following summary information.

The Council’s activities and finances had been dominated this year by the continuing impact of COVID-19 and it was expected that COVID-19 and its consequences would continue to have a major impact on the Council’s finances for at  ...  view the full minutes text for item 254.

Report attached.

Councillor Joyce Plummer, Portfolio Holder for Resources, provided a report setting out the Council’s policy and objectives with respect to treasury management, to explain how it will achieve its objectives and manage its activities; and to agree an investment strategy for 2022/23 - 2024/25.

Councillor Plummer highlighted a number of key issues within the report, as follows:-

• The effective management of resources;
• Prudential indicators and limits;
• Borrowing;
• Loans; and
• Investment

The report had been prepared in line with the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA) advice.

Approval of the report was not a key decision.

Reason for decision

Treasury management was defined as:

• The management of the Council’s investment and cash flows, its banking, money market and capital market transactions;
• The effective control of the risks associated with these activities;
• And the pursuit of optimum performance consistent with those risks.

The Council was required to operate a balanced budget which meant that cash raised during the year would meet cash expenditure.  Part of treasury management was to ensure the cash flow was properly planned with cash available when needed.  Surplus monies were invested in line with the Council’s low risk preferences.

The second function of treasury management was funding the Council’s capital plans.  The plans gave a guide to the future borrowing need of the Council.  The management of this longer term cash flow might involve arranging long or short term loans or using longer term cash flow surpluses.  Occasionally, outstanding debt might be restructured to reduce Council risk or meet cost objectives.

The report had been prepared in line with the Treasury Management Code and Guidance (2017) written by The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA).  In the case of local authorities in England and Wales, the Code was significant under the provisions of the Local Government Act 2003.  This required local authorities ‘to have regard (a) to such guidance as the Secretary of State may issue, and (b) to such other guidance as the Secretary of State may by regulations specify’.  The Local Authorities (Capital Finance and Accounting) (England) Regulations 2003 in paragraph 24 required local authorities to have regard to this guidance.  Acceptance of this report fulfilled those obligations.  CIPFA had published revised codes on 20^th December 2021 and had stated that formal adoption was not required until the 2023/24 financial year.

The report included detailed information on the following matters:-

• The Prudential Code and Prudential Indicators;
• Capital expenditure and the capital financing requirement;
• Minimum Revenue Provision (MRP);
• Affordability prudential indicators;
• Treasury Management Strategy 2022/23 - 2024/25;
• External debt overall limits;
• External v internal borrowing;
• Limits on activity;
• Debt rescheduling;
• Investment strategy;
• Treasury Management Practices (TMP);
• Policy on the use of external service providers; and
• Treasury Management Strategy in-year and year-end reporting.

There were no alternative options for consideration or reasons

Resolved                                    -    That Cabinet recommends Council to:

(1)    Adopt the prudential indicators and limits detailed in the report;

(2)    Approve the Treasury Management  ...  view the full minutes text for item 255.

Report attached.

Councillor Joyce Plummer, Portfolio Holder for Resources, provided a report setting out proposals for the 2022/23 General Fund Revenue Budget.  It also provided an overview of key issues arising from the Medium Term Financial Strategy.  The decision to set the Budget would be a core decision of the Council.  The role of the Cabinet was to recommend a proposed Budget to the Council.

Councillor Haworth indicated that the Conservative Group had hoped to provide an alternative Budget for 2022/23, but were cognisant of the fact that finance officers were extremely busy and would be unable to support Members to develop a detailed alternative Budget.  Accordingly, the Group would not prepare that type of draft Budget.   However, Group might wish to propose some amendments to the existing Budget recommendations at the Resources Overview and Scrutiny Budget meeting.  She expressed a hope that the lack of a formal alternative Budget would not be raised as a political point at the Council meeting.  The Leader noted that the way that Budgets were developed had altered as local authorities had shifted from the traditional the Committee Model of governance arrangements.

Councillor Plummer highlighted some key issues from the report as follows:-

• The Council had managed its Budget well in 2021/22, so could set balanced budget in 2022/23 without draining reserves or making cuts to services or staffing;
• Grants would make up around £2M of the total £12M spend;
• COVID-19 was waning but the virus had not yet gone away and there could be further combative action and extra resources required in the future;
• Around £1.2M cost pressures had been added to the proposed Budget;
• Overall there would be small increase of around 2% in Council Tax, around 7p per week for most households and below inflation;
• The Budget would support key projects including town centre events, environmental health team activity and enforcement, ICT infrastructure, permanent posts, correcting budgets which had become detached from actual costs, maintenance of public defibrillators as recommended by Overview and Scrutiny; and
• The final details of precepts from Lancashire County Council, the Police and Crime Commissioner, Lancashire Combined Fire Authority and Altham Parish Council should be available in time for Council on 24^th February 2022.

The Leader of the Council added that the major costs in the Budget were around staffing - about £10M.  A list of the growth pressures was included at Appendix 3 to the report, along with the corporate savings target of £120k and resources released by the abolition of the Cabinet Action Fund of £20k.

Approval of the report was not a key decision.

Reason for decision

This report set out the Council’s Revenue Budget for 2022/23.  This would require net expenditure of £12,334,000.

Under these proposals, Council Tax for Hyndburn residents would rise for Hyndburn Council provided services by £5.11 (1.99%) for a Band D property.  The amounts due for each band were shown at Appendix 4 of the report.  The increase was equivalent to less than 10p per week for a Band D  ...  view the full minutes text for item 256.

Report attached.

Councillor Joyce Plummer, Portfolio Holder for Resources, provided a report requestingCabinet to consider the Council’s capital investment priorities for 2022/23 and recommending to the Council a Capital Programme for approval at its meeting on the 24^th February 2022, having regard to key linkages between the management of the Council’s capital and revenue resources.

Councillor Plummer reported that the Capital Programme for 2022/23 was the largest ever with in excess of £38.5M projects planned (double the previous peak spending when delivering the housing schemes across west Accrington).  Major schemes included some £24M on Accrington Town Centre under the Levelling-Up proposals and £12M on the Leisure Estate to make it fit for purpose and improve the health and wellbeing of residents at inviting venues.  Other projects included:-

• A contribution to the extension of Accrington Stanley Community Trust’s indoor sports facility;
• £1.1M Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) to allow vulnerable residents to maintain independent lives and reduce pressure on hospitals and social care services;
• A new play area at Knuzden Recreation Area;
• Leeds and Liverpool Canal towpath cycleway;
• Accrington cemetery improvements; and
• Other estates improvements.

The Leader of the Council commented that two years of the pandemic had taken its toll on residents and businesses and it would take time to recover.  A Capital Programme of over £38M would help to drive forward recovery.  Levelling-Up money would support the Town Centre Investment Plan and growth was also linked to the Huncoat Garden Village project.  The Partnership would develop the Levelling-Up Fund bid and would take account of wider stakeholder involvement.  Town Centre Investment would utilise £20M provided from external sources, with £4M available from Council Reserves.  The project was centred on increasing footfall in Accrington, but would benefit the whole of the Borough.  The project around Leisure represented the largest investment in this sector since 1974.  Older facilities needed investment and some would be repurposed, not closed.  The Programme also included replacement of the 3G pitch at Hyndburn Leisure Centre for which around £55k of funding had already been set aside.

Councillor Haworth thanked the Leader of the Council for the commitment to the project at Knuzden Recreation Area.  Councillor Britcliffe asked if the Budget meeting would be held in the Council Chamber, as the acoustics in the Ballroom were not ideal.  Jane Ellis, Executive Director – Legal and Democratic Services responded that Members had previously been consulted on their risk appetite around social distancing.  There was a spectrum of responses with some councillors happy to return to less restrictions, but a number indicating that they were vulnerable.  The emergence of the Omicron variant had meant a return to higher levels of risk control recently.

Councillor Plummer thanked Joe McIntyre, Deputy Chief Executive, and his staff for their hard work in producing all of the budget papers.  Councillor Paul Cox, Deputy Leader of the Council, commented that this was a fantastic Capital Programme.  He was particularly impressed with the commitment towards sports and leisure, which was so important.  Parks and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 257.