Agenda and draft minutes

The Leader of the Council, Councillor Munsif Dad, welcomed everyone to the meeting.  He noted that this was the first meeting of Cabinet since the passing of Councillor Marlene Haworth and reflected that she would be foremost in the thoughts and prayers of those present today.  The Leader mentioned how she had made her mark on both the people and the work of the Council and that she would be sadly missed.  She would be remembered by all and would be formally recognised by the Council shortly by the award of a suitable honour.  On behalf of the Cabinet, he expressed condolences to Marlene’s husband, family and friends and to members of the Conservative Group.  He anticipated that many friends and councillor colleagues would wish to attend her funeral in the next week or so.  He would speak further about Councillor Haworth’s legacy at the next Council meeting.

One minute’s silence was then observed as a mark of respect.

Councillor Khan thanked the Leader for his kind words.  He too intended to speak further at the Council meeting on 26^th February 2026.  He provided a brief update on the circumstances of Marlene’s death.  Her death would be registered shortly and both he and Councillor Cassidy were supporting her husband, Jim, throughout this difficult period and would be making the funeral arrangements soon.  These were likely to be in the next week or two and should be at time that would enable the attendance of councillors and Council staff, if they so wished.  He added that Jim had received lots of cards and love and was greatly appreciative.  Councillor Khan also expressed his thanks to the wider Labour Group for their support.

Other members present indicated that they would speak at the next Council meeting.

Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of Councillor Ethan Rawcliffe.

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

To approve the Minutes of the meeting of Cabinet held on 21^st January 2026.  (attached)

The minutes of the meeting of the Cabinet held on 21^st January 2026 were submitted for approval as a correct record.

In respect on Minutes 277 - Local Elections 2026, Councillor Khan noted that the Government had announced that it would no longer postpone local elections in those areas subject to Local Government Review as previously identified.  He asked what additional costs there would be to the Council due to this decision.  The Leader confirmed that no additional costs would fall to the Council beyond what had already been budgeted for to run elections.  The due diligence of staff had ensured that preparation work for the local elections had continued without incurring unnecessary costs, so to the elections could go ahead if necessary.  More details would be announced under Agenda Item 8.  Councillor Khan expressed the view that £63m would be wasted by the Government following their announcement of new capacity funding across the affected local councils. The Leader responded that this money was not ‘wasted’ but would help those councils to best deliver Local Government Reorganisation.  Hyndburn would receive its share of this funding and an announcement on this was due to be made under a later Agenda item.

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

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:

Lancashire County Council - Levelling Up Schemes

Some £50m of Levelling Up Funding had been announced by Lancashire County Council (LCC) last year.  The Leader had met recently with LCC officers to discuss projects in Hyndburn.  These would be focused on two themes:

• Safer, Greener and Healthier Streets (SGHS); and
• Public Transport Improvements.

The first theme would include projects in two areas, as follows:

• Woodnook;
• Countess Street, Accrington.

The Leader provided further details about the above projects

The second theme would deliver projects in relation to bus services Nos, 9, 464, M1 and X41,including the following:

• Real time passenger information;
• Upgraded traffic signal technology; and
• Accessibility improvements at bus stops.

East Lancashire Health Centres Renovation and Reconfiguration

Three health centres in East Lancashire would benefit from major investment projects during 2026.  Funding from the Department of Health and Social Care, totalling around £8 million, was being utilised to improve and refurbish Barbara Castle Way Health Centre in Blackburn, St Peter’s Centre in Burnley and Acorn Primary Health Care Centre in Accrington.

The investment supported the ambitions of the Government’s 10-year Plan for the NHS, to create health centres that would provide more services to meet the needs of their local communities.

In respect of the Acorn Primary Health Care Centre project, following the emergency closure of Accrington Victoria Hospital, there was an opportunity to improve and increase utilisation of the Acorn site.

The main entrance/atrium area on the upper ground floor would be reconfigured to accommodate a range of hospital services enabling greater integration with the current primary care services.

The funding would go towards the establishment of a ‘Health Hub’ which would include two new X-Ray rooms, a six-bay Minor Injuries Unit, a triage and plaster room, new reception and waiting areas, additional primary care rooms and more clinical spaces.

The project had already enabled two further GP practices to relocate into the Acorn building bringing the total number of GP practices operating from this site to four.

This phased reconfiguration and transfer was expected to be completed in 20 weeks.

Oswaldtwistle Civic Theatre

Ross Lee Construction had been engaged to undertake roofing works at the Civic Theatre, in Oswaldtwistle, with effect from 27^th February 2026.  The work would take approximately 27 weeks and was scheduled to end on 16^th October 2026.

The Council was continuing to explore the potential for community use of the building, to take effect as soon as possible.  It might be possible to use the ground floor while works were ongoing to make the upper floor and roof structurally sound.  The Council had already secured significant grant funding from Theatres in Trust for this facility and was committed to supporting the Theatre’s long-term use.

Councillor Melissa Fisher added that the Council wanted the venue to have a vibrant future.

Religious Observance

Today was significant as it marked the first day of both Ramadan and Lent.

Ramadan was one  ...  view the full minutes text for item 303.

Report attached.

The Cabinet considered a report of Councillor Munsif Dad BEM JP, Leader of the Council, on the Council’s biodiversity duty.

The Leader provided a brief introduction to the report, highlighting The Environment Act 2021, which had introduced a strengthened 'biodiversity duty' requiring all public authorities in England to consider what they could do to conserve and enhance biodiversity.  Local authorities and local planning authorities were required to publish a biodiversity report which set out how they would comply with this duty and the actions they could take. Thereafter, authorities would have to publish an updated report within 5 years of the end date of the previous reporting period.

The Act had also introduced a mandatory requirement for a minimum of 10% ‘Biodiversity Net Gain’ (BNG) from major developments.  The report included details of the authority’s approach the BNG.

Councillor Zak Khan considered that the work done so far was a good news story for the Council.  He would be keen to see further publicity about how the Council was continuing to protect its green spaces and what positive impacts had been achieved in the light of the environmental duties now in place.  The Leader responded that the updated Local Plan was expected to be adopted during the summer.  It might be appropriate to ask the Head of Planning and Transportation for further details about Biodiversity at that time.  Councillor Kimberley Whitehead commented that the proposed Budget for 2026/27 included funding for on-going improvements at the Brookside (Bury Meadows) Restoration Project and the Bullough Park Project.  The Council was striving to secure investment for the future.

Approval of the report was not deemed a key decision.

Reasons for Decision

The Council had a statutory duty to conserve and enhance biodiversity (habitats and species) as set by the Environment Act 2021 and the amended Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 (NERC Act).  This was known as ‘the biodiversity duty’.

A key effect of the Environment Act was to amend s.40 of the NERC Act from a duty to ‘conserve’ to a requirement to both ‘conserve’ and ‘enhance’, with the aim to provide for the enhancement or improvement of biodiversity, not just its maintenance in its current state.

To comply with the Biodiversity Duty the Council as a public authority, had to

• Consider what it could do to conserve and enhance biodiversity;
• Agree policies and specific objectives based on its consideration;
• Act to deliver its policies and achieve its objectives; and
• Report on its biodiversity duty actions.

Government guidance provided advice on complying with the duty and reporting on this compliance.  The end date of the first reporting period was stated as ‘no later than 1^st January 2026’.

The Council had to publish a Biodiversity Duty Report within 12 weeks of the period’s end to inform progress on actions taken.  Therefore, for a reporting period ending 1^st January 2026, the publication deadline was 26^th March 2026.

The end date of subsequent reporting periods should be no later than 5  ...  view the full minutes text for item 304.

Report attached.

Members considered a report of Councillor Clare Pritchard, Portfolio Holder for Transformation and Town Centres, seeking approval to continuing the support for market traders decanted into the temporary cabins on the market square through licence fee concessions and continuing the support provided to the Official Accrington Stanley Supporters Trust (OASST).

Councillor Clare Pritchard provided a brief introduction to this report, highlighting that, while construction was still underway at the Market Hall and in the light of competition from on-line shopping, the Council would continue to provide financial support to the decanted market traders and OASST.  Councillors Kimberley Whitehead, Scott Brerton, Melissa Fisher and Zak Khan all spoke in favour of this course of action.

Councillor Khan queried whether the revenue costs of delays to the Market Hall project were sufficiently transparent.  The Leader considered that the Council had been very open about this matter, even in the face of some criticism.  The Market Hall should be completed by the end of the year and the Council wanted the traders to be on a sound financial footing should they chose to return indoors.  Councillor Pritchard commented that the traders were fully on board with the project.  The financial issue for the Council was not about additional costs, but rather about the loss of rental/licence fee income.  Councillor Whitehead added that these costs had been set out in reports published both last year and in the current year.  Councillor Pritchard summarised by noting that although there was a perception of delays to the completion of the project, the end date had never been fixed, as there had always been an understanding that this was on old building and that complex issues (such as asbestos) could arise during the refurbishment works.  Ultimately, the Council wanted to provide a quality facility, not a cheap fix.  Traders and Council staff had been patient and supportive throughout the project and references to ‘delays’ were not helpful.

Approval of the report was not deemed a key decision.

Reasons for Decision

The Council had agreed to support those market traders temporarily relocated on the town square whilst the Market Hall redevelopment works were undertaken.  A report presented in March 2025, had seen Cabinet give approval to provide rent and licence fees concessions for 12 months from 1^st April 2025 or until the temporary cabins were removed whichever came first.

This 12-month agreement was coming to an end and the report proposed the Council maintained its zero-rent lease/fee charge for the temporary cabins with all other charges remaining as per the current concession levels.  If approved by Cabinet, this would maintain the following charges until the cabins were removed from the town square for the Market Hall reopening:

• £0.00 (zero charge) per calendar month for market cabin rent/licence fee
• £9.00 per sqft per calendar month for service charges.
• £25 per calendar month for trader storage units located under the rear pavilion at the Market Hall (no services provided to these storage units).
• £120.00 per calendar month as a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 305.

Report attached.

Members considered a report of Councillor Vanessa Alexander, Portfolio Holder for Resources and Council Operations, seeking approval for a new code of corporate governance.

Councillor Alexander introduced this report, outlining that it would be good practice to adopt the code and that the principles it sought to embed would assist in the build up to Local Government Reorganisation and at the commencement of the new unitary authority.

Approval of the report was not deemed a key decision.

Reasons for Decision

The Chartered Institute of Public Finance Accountancy (CIPFA) and the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives (SOLACE) had recommended that all local authorities should document their governance arrangements to demonstrate compliance with the “seven core principles of good governance”, which CIPFA and SOLACE had jointly developed.  Hyndburn’s neighbouring authorities already had such codes in place and it had been suggested that the codes might be useful starting points or points of reference for the work to develop governance arrangements both for the Local Government Reorganisation process and for the emerging successor authorities.

The seven core principles were as follows:

          i.    Behaving with integrity, demonstrating strong commitment to ethical values, and respecting the rule of law.

         ii.    Ensuring openness and comprehensive stakeholder engagement.

        iii.    Defining outcomes in terms of sustainable economic, social, and environmental benefits.

        iv.    Determining the interventions necessary to optimise the achievement of the intended outcomes.

         v.    Developing the entity’s capacity, including the capability of its leadership and the individuals within it.

        vi.    Managing risks and performance through robust internal control and strong public financial management.

       vii.    Implementing good practices in transparency, reporting, and audit, to deliver effective accountability.

The Council was committed to having an effective governance framework and, using the CIPFA / SOLACE principles, had developed a Code of Corporate Governance which identified the arrangements the Council had in place to support good governance.  The code also identified activity planned for the next 12 months to further strengthen the Council’s governance arrangements.

The Council’s governance framework would be reviewed annually to ensure its ongoing effectiveness.

Alternative Options considered and Reasons for Rejection

The Council could decide not to adopt a code of corporate governance.  This was not recommended as it would be contrary to CIPFA guidance and recognised good practice.

Resolved                                   -    That Cabinet approves the draft Code of Corporate Governance appended to the report

Report attached.

Members considered a report of Councillor Vanessa Alexander, Portfolio Holder for Resources and Council Operations, informing the Cabinet of the 3-year projections of income and expenditure for the Council ahead of formulating its 2026/2027 to 2028/2029 Revenue and Capital Budgets.

Councillor Alexander introduced this report, highlighting some of the key financial information included in the Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS), the 3 year duration of the projections, the purpose of the document, the Government’s three-year financial settlement and future challenges.  The Council anticipated a loss of grant of almost £6.35m over the MTFS period.  This would be partially offset by significant pensions savings and other identified budget savings, but would still give rise to a total funding gap of £5.062m by 2028/29.  This gap would need to be met by reserves.  Overall, the Council would have sufficient reserves to sustain itself until Local Government Reorganisation and the use of reserves in this way had been approved by the Ministry of Housing Communities and Local Government (MHCLG).

Through good financial management the Council could still meet its commitments, including its Capital Programme and staffing costs.  The Council would be cautious about future expenditure unless any surpluses were identified or additional grant funding received.

The Leader indicated that the Government had announced that the local elections in 2026 would not now be postponed.  To assist those councils affected the Government would make £63m grant funding available nationally.  Hyndburn would receive a share of that allocation.  As the Council’s budget had already included provision for an election, the grant would free up this resource.  Accordingly, the Council was now in a position to freeze the Council Tax, at a cost of £185k compared to a 2.99% increase.  Further details would be included in the final Budget papers due to be submitted to the Council on 26^th February 2026.

Councillor Khan made comments and asked a number of questions as shown below, to which responses were provided, as follows:

• Could the Cabinet confirm that around 5% of the Council’s baseline funding had been lost over a 3 year period, amounting to some £6.35m?  -  Response:  This was correct.
• Would this Council receive a share of the £63m grant announce by the Government?  -  Response:  The Council would receive an allocation from that grant.
• Would the above grant offset the whole of the financial settlement reduction, given that there were 315 councils in England, or would the use of reserves still be required?  -  Response: The grant was only for the 30 councils affected by the reinstatement of the elections.  However, the use of this Council reserves would still be necessary.
• Hyndburn was the 16^th most deprived local authority area in the country, but was doing well in growing businesses.  However, it was being penalised by the Government.  For 2026/27, what was the loss in the financial settlement that needed to be filled?  -  Response: The was no funding gap for the forthcoming year.  The Leader and MP had worked hard to challenge  ...  view the full minutes text for item 307.

Report attached.

Members considered a report of Councillor Vanessa Alexander, Portfolio Holder for Resources and Council Operations, setting out the proposals for the Council’s policy and objectives with respect to treasury management, and explaining how it would achieve its objectives and manage its activities; and agreement to an investment strategy for 2026/27.

Councillor Alexander provided a brief introduction to this report, outlining the four key documents provided.

Councillor Khan noted that there might be a veto to borrowing more money in the buikd up to transferring to a new unitary authority.  He asked if there would be any opportunity to borrow more money.  The Leader referred to earlier responses on the question of borrowing.  The Council would set a balanced Budget and would only borrow if there was a significant project that needed to be undertaken.  The £1.5m Pride in Place funding and other grants had helped to remove the need for additional borrowing.  Councillor Alexander reiterated that the situation would be kept under review and that consideration would be given to anything suitable that arose.

Approval of the report was not deemed a key decision.

Reasons for Decision

The proposed Treasury Management Strategy and associated appendices, comprising the following documents, were attached to the report:

• Minimum Revenue Provision Policy Statement 2026/27;
• Treasury Management Policy Statement 2026/27; and
• Treasury Management Practices 2026/27.

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 appetite, providing adequate liquidity initially before considering investment return.

The second main 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 (2021) written by The Chartered Institute of Public Finance & 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 the report fulfilled those obligations.

CIPFA had published revised codes on 20^{th  ...  view the full minutes text for item 308.}

Report attached.

Members considered a report of Councillor Vanessa Alexander, Portfolio Holder for Resources and Council Operations, introducing the proposals contained within the Revenue Budget Report 2026-2027, which was provided as Appendix A.  The covering report also provided an overview of key issues arising from the Medium-Term Financial Strategy.

The decision to set the Budget was a core decision of the Council.  The role of the Cabinet was to recommend a proposed Budget to Council.

Councillor Alexander introduced this report, highlighting key figures from the report.  She reiterated that the Council would set a balanced Budget for 2026/27 without the use of reserves or cuts to services or staff.  She reminded all that there had been some loss of Government funding for the forthcoming year.  The Council’s net expenditure for 2026/27 would be around £17.608m.  She also outlined the sources of funding and amounts proposed, including savings targets.  The Portfolio Holder also confirmed the proposal announced earlier in the meeting, not to increase Hyndburn’s element of the Council Tax, which would now remain at £276.46 for a Band D property. She added that the Budget report would be revised as necessary in advance of the Council meeting on 26^th February 2026.  This would also include the final Council Tax figures from the various precepting authorities.

Headline proposals included:

• Free car parking;
• A freeze on the green waste collection charge;
• Support available from the Cabinet Action Fund; and
• A freeze in Hyndburn’s element of the Council Tax.

Councillor Khan noted that £300k had been allocated for the operation of the Market Hall following the departure of the original contactor.  Councillor Pritchard clarified that the original contractor and Council had parted company by mutual agreement and the £300k was the estimate of the running costs of an in-house offer.

Councillor Khan also asked about the total amount being transferred to reserves in 2026/27.

Approval of the report was not deemed a key decision.

Reasons for Decision

The report set out the Council’s Revenue Budget for 2026/27.  This would require net expenditure of £17,607,700.

Initially it had been proposed that Council Tax for Hyndburn residents would incur a rise in charge for Hyndburn Council provided services and the charge for a Band D property would increase from £276.46 in 2025/2026 to £284.73.  However, this proposal had been revised in the light of the Government’s announcement on grant funding due to the reinstatement of the local elections in May 2026.  Accordingly, the current proposal was for a Council Tax freeze.

A number of national and global issues had undoubtedly had an impact on the Council’s budgets and this along with the impact of higher inflation and forecast pay settlements had contributed to the Council initially seeking to raise its element of the Council Tax by the maximum 2.99%, an increase of £8.27 annually on a Band D property.  However, this was no longer being proposed.

Lancashire County Council, the Police & Crime Commissioner and the Lancashire Combined Fire Authority had not yet formally taken their decisions  ...  view the full minutes text for item 309.

Report attached.

Members considered a report of Councillor Vanessa Alexander, Portfolio Holder for Resources and Council Operations, setting out the proposed capital programme for 2026/27 – 2028/29.

Councillor Alexander introduced this report, highlighting key figures for new additions to the programme, slippage from previous years and the total cost of the Capital Programme in 2026/27 of £38.5m.  She also outlined some key projects including the following:

• War Memorial Restoration;
• Maden Street Clock Tower Lighting;
• Christmas Decorations;
• Huncoat Garden Village Scheme;
• ICT Projects;
• Levelling Up Projects;
• Sport Facilities;
• Operational Buildings;
• Parks and Play Areas; and
• Pride in Place Projects

Councillor Clare Pritchard spoke about the importance of Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) projects and gave an example of a recent case in which she had been involved where a resident’s quality of life had been enhanced.  She placed on record her thanks to Sarah Whittaker, Regeneration Manager, for her assistance.  Councillor Fisher was also pleased to see this grant being utilised, but noted that, unfortunately, adaptations did take some time to implement.

Councillor Zak Khan made some comments and asked a number of questions, as follows:

• He was pleased to note that a large number of Pride in Place schemes had been proposed.  He asked what consultations had taken place about the schemes to be supported and what schemes had been rejected.
• Who had determined the Community Projects and Neighbourhood Projects identified?
• Did the IT Projects identified include provision for livestreaming meetings?  Response: As reported previously, this scheme had not been agreed on the grounds of value for money.  However, it was understood that one councillor had offered to undertake livestreaming using their own portable equipment.
• The support for Mercer Hall and Accrington Stanley Community Trust (ASCT) was noted.  He asked if there would be a formal agreement with ASCT about the schemes to be funded.  -  Response: ASCT were due to make an announcement on this subject shortly.
• He was pleased to note the investment in the Brookside Restoration Project.  In respect of investment in Parks and Open Spaces.  Would the funding be spread across many parks, or focused on a small number of schemes?  -  Response: Support for parks and open spaces was a priority and the intention was to spread the funding evenly across the Borough, in so far as this was possible.  One park in Accrington and one park in Rishton were due to be refurbished.
• Who determined allocations from the Cabinet Action Fund?

Councillor Dad responded that for programmed schemes all Cabinet members were involved in the decisions.  Discussions had taken place with stakeholders, including the Neighbourhoods Board.  Ward councillors had also spoken to individuals representing local communities.  Councillor Whitehead added that for some Neighbourhood Improvement Projects the funding had not yet been allocated.  There would be some small areas that required capital investment to make a difference, but no monies had yet been earmarked for specific schemes

Approval of the report was not deemed a key decision.

Reasons for Decision

The report set out the Council’s Capital Programme  ...  view the full minutes text for item 310.