Agenda and minutes

Councillor Munsif Dad BEM JP, the Leader of the Council, welcomed the two newest Portfolio Holders to their first meeting Cabinet under the current administration.  He commented that Councillor Clare Pritchard would bring her knowledge and previous experience back to the executive, while Councillor Ethan Rawcliffe would bring a fresh perspective, as the youngest serving councillor in the Borough.

Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of Councillor Kimberley Whitehead.

There were no declarations of interest or dispensations made on this occasion.

To approve the Minutes of the meeting of Cabinet held on 26^th March 2025.

The minutes of the meeting of Cabinet held on 26^th March 2025 were submitted for approval as a correct record.

In respect of Minute 399 - Accrington Stanley FC, Councillor Khan noted that a further meeting had been held with the football club after the aforementioned Cabinet meeting.  He asked about the purpose of the meeting and any outcomes.  The Leader responded that he would provide an update on this matter under Agenda Item 5 – reports of Cabinet Members.  (Minute 46 refers).

In connection with Minute 409 – Huncoat Garden Village, Councillor Khan commented that he had not yet received the updated risk register in relation to the HGV project, which he had requested.  Councillor Dad gave an undertaking to arrange for this to be sent to him.

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 board were presented:

Resolved                                    -    To note the minutes of the board as indicated above.

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

Leader of the Council

Councillor Munsif Dad BEM JP reported on the following:

Devolution and Local Government Reorganisation

The Leader had already been involved in a number of meetings to discuss local government reorganisation.  Proposals around 3 or 4 unitary authorities models were emerging.  The final submission to Government would need to be made by November.   The Leader indicated that his preference was for the 3 unitary councils option, but that the model with 4 councils might be acceptable.  He anticipated that firm proposals would be available by October for wider circulation and comment.

Accrington Neighbourhoods Board

The Council had appointed Andy Tatchell as Chair of the newly formed Accrinhton Neighbourhoods Board.   The Board would oversee the investment of some £20m in Accrington town centre over the next 10 years, which would complement the existing Levelling Up interventions.

Accrington Stanley FC

The Council was continuing to work positively with the football club to address various issues.  A further meeting had taken place about the licensing situation and the Council was committed to continuing its dialogue with the club.  Two meetings on this matter had taken place so far and a further meeting would be held soon.

Portfolio Holder for People and Communities

Councillor Ethan Rawcliffe reported on the following:

He was currently dealing with a request from Prospects to extend the lease on Piggy Park, in Rishton.  The site was maintained as community garden, which was used by Brownies, Rainbows, Cubs, churches and adult social care organisations for numerous activities.  The area provided a key social hub and was also accessible to wheelchair users.  The site had previously attracted £100k in external funding and this had been invested in developing the site over a period of time.  The detail of the proposed lease extension was currently being worked on by the Legal and Property teams within the Council.  It was envisaged that a full report would be available soon.

Portfolio Holder for Resources and Council Operations

Councillor Vanessa Alexander reported on the following:

Household Support Fund

The service had now recommenced and had been brought back in-house.

Portfolio Holder for Environmental Services

Councillor Stewart Eaves reported on the following:

Waste Transfer Station

Discussions were on-going with Lancashire County Council about the possible development of a waste transfer station

Skip Days

Skip days had now resumed with the first one due to be held on 12^th July 2025 in St Andrews ward.  Suez had ceased to support the original arrangements.  A new agreement had been entered into with SB Tippers of Great Harwood, to supply skips at £500 each.  This was significantly cheaper than an equivalent service offered by Suez.

4x4 Vehicles

The Council currently operated five 4x4 vehicles, but was in the process of reducing this number to one vehicle.  This would enable the Council to be greener.  It was likely that the new vehicle would be compatible with Hydrated Vegetable Oil (HVO) fuel.

Portfolio Holder for Transformation and Town Centres

Councillor Clare Pritchard  ...  view the full minutes text for item 46.

In accordance with Executive Procedure Rule B16(c), to receive a report on decisions taken under urgency procedures. The following decisions are attached:

In accordance with Executive Procedure Rule B16(c), Members considered a report on the following decisions taken under the urgency procedure:

Resolved                                    -    To note the report on urgent decisions taken.

Cabinet Portfolios for 2025/26 attached, for noting

The Agenda set out a copy of the Leader’s document: Labour Cabinet Membership and Portfolio Holder Responsibilities for 2025/26.  Councillor Dad was pleased to announce the appointment of two new members to the Cabinet.  In addition, there had been some changes to Portfolio titles and a reorganisation of the some functions allocated between the Portfolios.

A summary of the appointees and their Portfolios was as shown below.  Details the specific functions allocated to each Portfolio were as set out in the Agenda document.

• Councillor Munsif Dad BEM JP – Leader of the Council;
• Councillor Melissa Fisher – Deputy Leader (Designate) and Portfolio Holder for Housing and Regeneration;
• Councillor Kimberley Whitehead – Deputy Leader and Portfolio Holder for Culture, Heritage and Sport;
• Councillor Vanessa Alexander – Portfolio Holder for Resources and Council Operations;
• Councillor Scott Brerton – Portfolio Holder for Business, Growth and Sustainability;
• Councillor Stewart Eaves – Portfolio Holder for Environmental Services;
• Councillor Clare Pritchard – Portfolio Holder for Transformation and Town Centres; and
• Councillor Ethan Rawcliffe – Portfolio Holder for People and Communities.

Resolved                                    -    To note the Portfolio Responsibilities for 2025/26.

Report attached.

Members considered a report of Councillor Munsif Dad BEM JP, Leader of the Council, confirming the establishment of Cabinet Committees and Cabinet Groups for the 2025/26 Municipal Year and appointing members to the Committees and Groups.

Councillor Dad provided a brief introduction to the report.  Some changes to appointed persons had been proposed in the light of Councillors Aziz and Walsh retirement from their Cabinet roles.

Councillor Khan expressed disappointment that two out of the three proposed Working Groups contained no Opposition representation.  Councillor Dad responded that those arrangements had been carried forward from the previous administration. At that time, the Labour Group (then in opposition) had been advised that it could still feed any comments or suggestions into the Working Groups by contacting those members directly.

Approval of the report was not deemed a key decision.

Reasons for Decision

In June 2015, Cabinet had established the Cabinet Committee (Scrap Metal Dealers Act 2013).  The Cabinet Committee determined whether to grant, renew, revoke or vary scrap metal licences pursuant to the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 2013, where the applicant or licensee (as the case may be) had informed the Council that they wished to make oral representations.  Meetings would take place only as and when required, but this body was needed to enable compliance with statutory requirements.

In December 2017, Cabinet had established the Cabinet Committee (Street Naming).  The Cabinet Committee met from time to time and discharged the Council’s functions in respect of the naming and renaming of streets pursuant to Sections 17 and 18 Public Health Act 1925.

In June 2012, Cabinet had established the Cabinet Waste and Recycling Group.  The body acted in an advisory capacity to Cabinet and did not have any delegated or decision making powers.  The Group met infrequently, but provided oversight of certain aspects of the Council’s Waste Services.

On 21^st September 2022, Cabinet had established the Net Zero Working Group.  The Working Group’s remit was to support the work of Cabinet in addressing climate change, but it did not have any delegated or decision making powers.  The Group was currently active.

On 18^th September 2025, Cabinet had established the Cabinet Action Fund Working Group.  The group’s remit was to evaluate applications for funding from the Cabinet Action Fund and to make recommendations to the Leader of the Council and Executive Director (Resources) for the payment of any grant.  The delegated authority to make any payment rested with the Executive Director (Resources), following the aforementioned consultations.

The terms of reference for all of the bodies mentioned above were appended to the report.  It was proposed that those bodies continue into 2025/26, with the membership as shown in Table 1, set out below.  Members were reminded that the formal Committees must only comprise councillors who were Cabinet Members:-

Table 1

Report attached.

Members considered a report of Councillor Melissa Fisher - Deputy Leader and Portfolio Holder for Housing and Regeneration, inviting the Cabinet to review and consider the Huncoat Garden Village (HGV) Design Code for approval.

Councillor Fisher provided a brief introduction to the report.  The document set out the key design standards for architects and planners.  Its purpose was to ensure the provision of high quality homes and a quality environment, which would enhance Huncoat.  Councillor Dad commented that engagement with stakeholders was important and that both he and Mark Hoyle, Head of Housing and Regeneration, had attended several Huncoat Forum meetings.

With the permission of the meeting, Councillor Dave Parkins spoke on this matter.  He reported that a meeting of Huncoat Forum had taken place last night, at which the Design Code had been discussed.  In the light of that meeting, a number of questions would be submitted to Councillor Fisher and Mr Hoyle within the next week.  The Forum had expressed concern that the overall situation had worsened.  Councillor Dad gave a commitment that the Council would answer any questions received.

Councillor Khan welcomed the engagement held with the public.  He asked about the following:

• What sources of reference and best practice had been used to create the Design Code?
• In respect of the Design Principles, eg. the Huncoat House (p.61), why were some classified as ‘required’ and others as ‘expected’?

Mr Hoyle responded that references had included the National Planning Policy Framework, Local Plan, HGV Masterplan and numerous local sources, such as the Huncoat Forum, walkabouts and photographic material which captured the character of the area and its landscape.  There was some national best practice included, but Hyndburn was one of 16  pilot authorities.  The aim was to make the Design Code right for the specific area concerned.  The mandatory and expected principles would allow planners to assess any applications, with some dos and some don’ts.  This allowed needs to be balanced by including what was important, whilst ensuring that the development remained commercially viable.

Approval of the report was not deemed a key decision.

Reasons for Decision

Hyndburn Borough Council was one of 16 local authorities selected by the Government to be part of its pilot programme to test the application of the National Model Design Code (NMDC).  The NMDC provided detailed guidance on the production of local design codes.    Design codes were intended to provide detailed guidance that lead to well-designed places.  Design codes were therefore typically seen as planning documents to be approved for planning purposes.

Hyndburn Borough Council had seen this as an opportunity to produce a design code that would provide detailed guidance on the design parameters, technical standards and specification to shape development for the Huncoat Garden Village (HGV) development.  A copy of the Design code was made available via the following link: Huncoat Design Code | Huncoat Garden Village.

The Code used qualitative and written, numerical and graphic content to set out rules designed to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 50.

Report attached.

Members considered a report of Melissa Fisher - Deputy Leader and Portfolio Holder for Housing and Regeneration, providing Cabinet with an update on the Huncoat Garden Village project.

The report also sought relevant delegations in respect of the acquisition of land and property to enable construction of the proposed residential relief road at Huncoat Garden Village and for delivery of the overall project following the Council entering into a Grant Funding Agreement with Homes England.

In addition, the report sought approval to start the process towards a Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) should the Council fail to acquire the required land and property by agreement

Councillor Fisher provided a brief introduction to the report. 

Approval of the report was not deemed a key decision.

Reasons for Decision

Good progress continued to be made on the HGV project, including:

• The Council had entered into the Brownfield, Infrastructure and Land (BIL) grant funding agreement with Homes England on the 31^st of March 2025

• A full planning application for the proposed residential relief road had been submitted and subsequently validated on the 3^rd April 2025

• The Council had claimed and recovered historic costs on the project to date, amounting to £710,569.  This had been paid by Homes England on the 29^th May 2025

• The Council had entered into a s274 agreement with National Highways that would facilitate the transfer of £2.19m grant funding to National Highways towards improvement works at junction 8 on the M65.

• The Design Code for the project was being presented to this Cabinet meeting for approval.

• The new, draft Local Plan had been submitted to the Secretary of State for Independent Examination on Monday, 10^th March 2025.  The Planning Inspectorate had appointed a planning inspector to assess its soundness and compliance with legal requirements.  Public hearing sessions had been set to run over the last two weeks of September this year and a further week from the 7^th of October.

• The Council had selected a preferred contractor to construct the proposed residential relief road.  Stage 2 of the tender process had commenced which included progressing the road design to RIBA Stage 4, and the preferred contractor firming up its final tender price.

• The former power station site owner and their house builder partner had submitted an updated outline planning application for the site.

• The owners of the former colliery site continued to engage with several house builders.

The proposed new residential relief road route and construction area was shown red on the plan attached as Appendix 1 to the report.  None of the land was in Hyndburn Council’s ownership.  The Council had appointed Avison Young to assist with the acquisition strategy, including discussions and negotiations on behalf of the Council to acquire the land and property.  Up to now, the Council had led on, and held direct discussions with, the landowners potentially involved in the proposed road route.    Should the Council be unable to acquire the land by agreement it was proposed to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 51.

Report attached.

The Cabinet considered a report of Councillor Kimberley Whitehead, Portfolio Holder for Culture, Heritage and Sport, seeking approval of the proposed Hyndburn Culture and Heritage Strategy (2025-2030).

In the absence of Councillor Whitehead, the Leader of the Council provided a brief introduction to the report.  The draft strategy was the product of a collaboration of many voices and thanks were due to all who had contributed to its development.  The Culture and Heritage Investment Panel (CHIP) had also made some changes to the original document.  The Strategy should help to preserve the Borough’s rich heritage and enhance tourism and educational opportunities.  The Strategy would link into inward investment, including the plans for the Dome, at Market Chambers.

Councillor Khan commented that the events now being held and draft Strategy were a credit to the officers and partners who supported them.  He enquired about the outcome measures identified in section 6 of the document and asked if these were open-ended, or intended to be completed by the end of 2025/26.  Councillor Dad responded that the Strategy had taken longer to finalise than originally anticipated and that outcome targets would need to be open-ended.

Approval of the report was not deemed a key decision.

Reasons for Decision

Accrington’s Town Centre Stakeholder Board had identified that culture and heritage activity should be a key strategic component of the efforts to drive regeneration in Accrington, and indeed the wider Borough.  Heritage was one of the central themes in the Council’s Town Centre Investment Plan (TCIP).  Hyndburn’s successful UKSPF bid for funding through to March 2025 had included a significant package of measures to support the arts, culture and heritage.  One of these was the development of a Culture and Heritage Strategy.

CT Consults had been procured in late 2023 and over the following months had conducted research and consultation to inform a draft strategy.  Their development work had included several interviews and workshops with people across the Borough and a draft strategy had been presented to the Culture and Heritage Investment Panel (CHIP) in April 2024.  Some changes had been made to reflect the appointment and direction of a Cabinet Portfolio Holder for Culture, Heritage and Arts (now Culture, Heritage and Sport) following the May 2024 local elections.  The draft document had then been shared widely to over 100 consultees.

A considerable amount of feedback had been received, in particular from the Towns Board and Better Places Panel (Arts Council England, Historic England and National Lottery Heritage Fund).  This had led to significant changes being made to the proposed strategy following a meeting of CHIP and other local stakeholders in January 2025.

The CHIP believed that the resulting redrafted Culture and Heritage Strategy had a clearer sense of Hyndburn’s assets and what made it different from other places, while focusing on links between people and between the past and the present.  This reflected a recommendation from the Historic Places visit, which said, “Connecting people with their common heritage (such as  ...  view the full minutes text for item 52.

Report attached.

Members considered a joint report of Councillor Vanessa Alexander, Portfolio Holder for Resources and Council Operations, providing an update on the Treasury Management outturn position for 2024/25.

Councillor Alexander provided a brief introduction to the report.  Councillor Khan noted the good work undertaken by the Executive Director (Resources) and his team.

Approval of the report was not deemed a key decision.

Reasons for Decision

The Prudential Code for Capital Finance in Local Authorities required the Council to set Prudential Indicators annually for the forthcoming three years to demonstrate that the Council’s capital investment plans were affordable, prudent, and sustainable.  The Council had adopted its prudential indicators for 2024/2025 at its meeting in February 2024.

The Prudential Code required the Council, having agreed at least a minimum number of mandatory prudential indicators (including limits and statements), to monitor them in a locally determined format on a quarterly basis.

The indicators were purely for internal use and were not designed to be used as comparators between authorities.  If it should be necessary to revise any of the indicators during the year, the Executive Director (Resources) would report and advise the Council further.

‘Treasury Management’ related to the borrowing, investing and cash activities of the authority, and the effective management of any associated risks.  In February 2024 in the same report referred to above, the Council also had set out and then approved its current Treasury Management Strategy.  This was in accordance with the CIPFA (Chartered Institute of Public Finance & Accountancy) code of practice on treasury management in public services, the Council having previously adopted, via Cabinet, the then revised code of practice.  Associated treasury management Prudential Indicators had been included in the February 2024 report.

Prudential Indicators Monitoring

Appendix 1 to the report set out the monitoring information for each of the prudential indicators and limits.  They related to:

·           External debt overall limits;

·           Affordability (e.g. implications for Council Tax);

·           Prudence and sustainability (e.g. implications for external borrowing);

·           Capital expenditure; and

·           Other indicators for Treasury Management.

Treasury Management Update

The outturn balance sheet position at 31^st March 2025 for treasury management activities was shown in the table below.

Forecast Treasury Balance Sheet Position 2024/25

The table demonstrated that the Council was performing within the original targets set at the start of the year.  Within the prudential indicators, there were several key indicators to ensure that the Council operated its activities within well-defined limits.  In general, the requirement was that the Capital Financing Requirement exceeded gross debt.  However, in 2024/25 the gross debt exceeded the Capital Financing Requirement.  This was due to the Council having historical debt with a maturity repayment profile (meaning all principal  ...  view the full minutes text for item 53.

Report attached.

The Cabinet considered a report of Councillor Vanessa Alexander, Portfolio Holder for Resources and Council Operations, regarding the draft financial spending of the Council up to the end of the financial year in March 2025. 

Members were advised that a further report would be provided once all the work was completed if there was any significant change to the position now reported.

Councillor Alexander provided a brief introduction to the report.

Councillor Khan commented that there were significant funds available within reserves and that the Opposition had made some suggestions about additional projects and expenditure at the Council’s Budget meeting in February 2025.  He asked if these funds could now be utilised.  Councillors Alexander and Dad responded that the Cabinet was currently looking at its priorities and would share some information on this in the near future.

Approval of the report was not deemed a key decision.

Reasons for Decision

At the Full Council meeting on 27^th February 2024, Council had agreed the General Fund Revenue Budget for 2024/25.  This had set a budget for the Council’s total revenue spend in 2024/25 of £16.122m.

The provisional revenue outturn position for the 2024/25 financial year was a total spend for the Council of £15.747m.  This gave a revenue underspend on net expenditure of £0.375m compared to the budget set at the start of the year.

Additional funding of £0.058m has been realised during the year compared to that set out in the budget.  This was mainly due to additional business rates top-up funding received above budget.

These brought the total net underspend for the year against the budget to £0.433m.

Table 1: Actual Performance Against Budgets

A total net underspend of £0.096m was reported to Cabinet on 22^nd January 2025.  The provisional outturn shows an increase to the overall net underspend of £0.337m, resulting in a total net underspend of £0.433m, compared with the working budget.  Table 2, included in the report, set out details of changes in the forecast variance by service since the last report at QTR3, with further detail being provided at Appendix 1 to the report.

The Final Accounts were still being prepared and would be reviewed by External Auditors once completed.  Therefore, the reported underspend of £0.433m was provisional and might change.

Variance by Service

Section 4 of the report included a narrative and additional tables (Nos 3 to 10) on Outturn by  ...  view the full minutes text for item 54.

Report attached.

The Cabinet considered a report of Councillor Vanessa Alexander, Portfolio Holder for Resources and Council Operations, which set out the Capital Programme outturn position for 2024/25, including variations to the budgets from those reported to Cabinet in January 2025.

Councillor Alexander provided a brief introduction to the report.

Councillor Khan commented that he would wish to see capital spending maximised before local government reorganisation and asked if new projects could be added to the Capital Programme.  Councillor Dad confirmed that the Controlling Group would look at possible developments which would benefit the whole of the Borough.

Approval of the report was not considered to be a key decision.

Reasons for Decision

The Council had authorised new additions to the Capital Programme 2024/25 of £4.404m at its meeting on the 27^th February 2024.

Since the Council meeting in February 2024, new schemes totalling £2.694m had been approved and added to the programme.  The additional expenditure approved was to be fully funded from by external grants and capital receipts.

In addition, the capital spend outturn from 2023/24 had slipped £40.656m into 2024/25, of which £37.769m related to the Levelling Up scheme for Accrington Town Centre, the Leisure Estate Investment and Housing Schemes, including Disabled Facilities Grants.

A further £8.482m of capital budgets had been removed from the capital programme.  As a result, the total approved Capital Programme now totalled £39.272m.  The table below provided a breakdown:

Capital Programme 2024/25

The current programme of £39.272m was not capable of being delivered in the current financial year.  Therefore, uncompleted elements of £23.236m had been slipped into the future years in which it was expected to be spent.

Outturn Position

The actual expenditure to 31^st March 2025 was £15.951m against the latest rephased budget for 2024/2025 of £16.036m.  This equated to 99.47% spend.

Following the rephasing of the programme budgets, the outturn showed a small underspend of £0.085m with most schemes in line with the budgeted profile and spent in year.

As shown in the table below, £23.097m of budget had been rephased into 2025/26 and £0.139m into 2026/27.  £12.577m related to the Levelling Up scheme for Accrington Town Centre, £6.793m to the Leisure Estate Investment, £0.409 to Disabled Facility Grants and the balance to miscellaneous capital schemes.

The significant elements of the programme spent in year were shown in the table below with a more detailed breakdown provided in Appendix A of the report.

2024/25 Variance and Future Phasing of Capital Programme

Report attached.

Members considered a joint report of Councillors Noordad Aziz, Stephen Button and Kate Walsh, Chairs of the Resources, Communities and Wellbeing and Special Overview and Scrutiny Committees respectively, requesting that Cabinet gave consideration to and provided comments on the work programmes for Overview and Scrutiny for 2025/26.

Councillor Noordad Aziz provided a brief introduction to the report and draft work programmes and highlighted the consultations that had taken place to develop them.

Councillor Khan expressed disappointment that many of the Opposition suggestions for scrutiny topics had not been included in the draft programmes.  He also commented that only a limited number of suggestions had been submitted by members of the public and queried whether more could be done to engage the public in democratic processes such as this.  In addition, he queried whether suggestions for topics raised in-year could be added to the work programmes.  The Leader of the Council responded that the usual broad-based consultation procedure had been followed for 2025/26, but that it might be possible to try different approaches in the future.  He added that the lack of public responses might be an indicator of overall satisfaction with the controlling administration’s work.  Councillor Aziz provided some examples of where public feedback had influenced the choice of topics made.  He also confirmed that suggestions for new topics could be accepted in-year, if appropriate.

Approval of the report was not considered to be a key decision.

Reasons for Decision

At the beginning of each municipal year, the Council’s Overview and Scrutiny Committees each agreed a work programme for the year.

The process for agreeing the work programme was set out in Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rule C6(a), as follows;

“The chair and vice chair of each overview and scrutiny committee will meet with the Cabinet within four weeks of each Annual Meeting to discuss the Cabinet’s policy priorities for the coming year. The chairs and vice chairs will propose a draft work programme for their committee within two weeks of that meeting. The draft work programmes will be submitted to the next following meeting of the Cabinet for comment and the draft work programme for each overview and scrutiny committee will then be submitted to the next following meeting of that committee (together with any comments or recommendations from the Cabinet) for approval.”

Any comments received from Cabinet would be considered at the next meetings of the Committees.

The work programmes had been developed following consideration of the Council’s guide for selecting items for scrutiny and consultation including:

• Emails to all Councillors;
• Suggestions sought from all service managers;
• Social media coverage for public suggestions; and
• An informal meeting between the Leader of the Council and the Chair and Vice-Chairs of the Scrutiny Committees.

There had been forty-six requests for items received for consideration for Scrutiny from Service Heads, Councillors and members of the public.  Items of a similar nature had been merged.  These items had been discussed in depth between the Scrutiny Chairs and the Leader of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 56.

Report attached.

The Cabinet considered a report of Councillor Ethan Rawcliffe, Portfolio Holder for People and Communities, seeking approval to pay a grant of £20,000 to Prospects Community Energy Limited (“PCE”) to support the Solar Meadow Project at Coach Road in Oswaldtwistle, a community renewable energy project, to help achieve net zero in the Borough.

Councillor Rawcliffe provided a brief introduction to the report, in which he explained the background to and aims of the project.  Solar panels on the site would generate enough electricity to power about 550 houses, but it was anticipated that William Blythe Limited would enter into a formal agreement to purchase the electricity produced.

Phil Vincent-Barwood MBE, Chairman of the Prospects Foundation, was in attendance.  He provided additional information about the scheme.  Prospects had owned the site since 2005, but the original proposals for the site were no longer considered to be viable.  Accordingly, the site was now being developed as a solar meadow.

Councillor Khan asked what alternative funding sources had been considered prior to contacting the Council.  Mr Vincent-Barwood responded that initial funding had been secured from the Rural Community Energy Fund, but that further funding was required for legal and technical work, including negotiations with Network Rail.  The proposed end-user for the energy generated, William Blythe Limited, had not been approached about funding to help set up the scheme, but the purchase price of the electricity would take into account some of the set up costs.

Approval of the report was not considered to be a key decision.

Reasons for Decision

PCE intended that the solar meadow project would generate up to 2 megawatts of electricity, equivalent to the needs of about 550 houses, and would help to reduce carbon emissions by replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy.  PCE was an independent community benefit society set up by the Prospects Foundation to develop, own and run the solar meadow project on the Foundation’s 11-acre site at Coach Road in Oswaldtwistle.  The Foundation was a registered charity and company limited by guarantee and would lease the site to PCE.  It was understood that the lease would be completed shortly.

In January 2024, PCE had received an initial grant of £25,000 from the Net Zero Working Group to assist with the cost of a planning application for the proposed solar panels. Planning permission had been granted, subject to conditions, on 12^th June 2024 and project development activity had continued since then.  PCE had reached agreement with William Blythe Limited for the purchase of energy generated at the site, with any surplus being sold via the national energy network.

PCE had now requested a further grant of £20,000 from the Council to help them to progress delivery of the project.  The additional funding was intended to be used to:

• Meet PCE’s legal costs, technical costs and easement fees in respect of the lease of the Coach Road site;
• Meet development costs, such as costs and expenses relating  ...  view the full minutes text for item 57.