Agenda and draft minutes

The Leader of the Council, Councillor Munsif Dad, welcomed the following newly appointed members to the Cabinet: Councillors Jodi Clements, Paul Cox and Kate Walsh.

He also welcomed representatives of the Main Opposition groups and confirmed his commitment to inviting theircomments or questions at Cabinet meetings.  He requested that Opposition questions should always be addressed to the Chair of the meeting.

Councillor Dad also remarked that he intended to bring forward Agenda Item 10 – Overview and Scrutiny Work Programmes 2026-27, so as not to delay Councillor Stephen Button unnecessarily.

There were no apologies for absence submitted on this occasion.

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

To approve the Minutes of the meeting of Cabinet held on 22^nd April 2026.

The minutes of the meeting of the Cabinet held on 22^nd April 2026 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 bodies were presented:

Resolved                                    -    To note the minutes of the various Boards, Panels and Working Groups, as set out in the above table.

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

Leader of the Council

Councillor Munsif Dad reported on the following:

Scaitcliffe Skate Park

Scaitcliffe skate Park, Eagle Street, Accrington, would shortly receive £255k of investment from the Pride in Place funding, for a refurbishment project.  The current facility was around 20 years old and was at the end do its useful lifespan.  Modern concrete ramps would be installed to replace the existing metal construction.

The above scheme complemented a wider programme of investment in sport and leisure, including providing funding for the employment of a new sports development officer and on-going improvements in Bullough Park.

Consultations on the Scaitcliffe skate park design would take place over the summer months, with further information available on social media at that time.

Councillor Zak Khan supported this investment, but enquired whether it might be premature, given that wider regeneration plans for the town centre might include this area of land.  The Leader responded that investment in, or demolition of the skate park was needed now, because if its state of repair.  The site was well used, did not attract anti-social behaviour and was remote enough from residential properties so as not to attract any nuisance complaints.

Councillor Jordan Fox asked why this site had been prioritised over facilities in other townships, such as Great Harwood.  The Leader reiterated that the skate park was at the end of its useful life and that Pride in Place funding would be available for the townships too.  Councillor Clements noted that Great Harwood had recently received a pump track facility in place of a defunct skate park.

Portfolio Holder for Transformation and Town Centres

Councillor Clare Pritchard reported on the following:

Levelling Up Projects Update

Local company, Senator, had now been appointed under the fit-out contact to provide furniture for Burton’s Chambers.  Conception Design Associates (CDA), a Preston based company, had been engaged for the manufacture and installation of the kitchens, pot wash and bar area within Accrington Market.  CDA would source a significant amount of the equipment required from firms in Clayton-le-Moors and Haslingden, with other components also coming from providers within the Hyndburn area.  The main contractor on these two Levelling Up Fund (LUF) projects, Krol Corlett, had also indicated that most of their contractors were companies within the Northwest and locally based.

The above demonstrated how Hyndburn Borough Council continually sought to prioritise local businesses.

Portfolio Holder for Environmental Services

Councillor Paul Cox reported on the following:

Food Waste Collection

The new food waste collection service had been going well since its introduction on 1^st April 2026.  In the first month, sone 150 tonnes of food waste had been collected, rising to 170 tonnes at present.  Hyndburn was the only council in Lancashire that collected food waste into the same collection vehicle and also from the same position residents presented their other wheeled bins.

There were 50 free food waste bags in the rolls supplied to residents, so it was likely that some of these rolls would be exhausted shorty.  If enquiries  ...  view the full minutes text for item 38.

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 decision taken under the urgency procedure:

Councillor Dad remarked that this decision related to the CDA contract for Accrington Market, as highlighted previously by Councillor Pritchard (Minute 38 - Levelling Up Projects Update refers).

Resolved                                    -    To note the report on urgent decisions taken.

Cabinet Portfolios for 2026/27 attached, for noting

The Agenda set out a copy of the Leader’s document: Labour Cabinet Membership and Portfolio Holder Responsibilities for 2026/27, which the Leader of the Council had previously approved under his executive powers.  Councillor Dad reported that there had been some minor adjustments to the Portfolios since 2025/26.

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 of the Council (Designate) and Portfolio Holder for Housing and Regeneration;
• Councillor Vanessa Alexander – Deputy Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Resources and Council Operations;
• Councillor Clare Pritchard – Portfolio Holder for Transformation and Town Centres;
• Councillor Jodi Clements - Portfolio Holder for Education and Skills;
• Councillor Paul Cox Eaves – Portfolio Holder for Environmental Services; and
• Councillor Kate Walsh – Portfolio Holder for Culture, Heritage and Arts;

Councillor Dad announced that he had taken a further decision, as Leader of the Council, to amend the detailed portfolios in the schedule of responsibilities, as follows:

Councillor Khan requested that Portfolio Holders be open to responding, in good faith, to issues raised by Opposition members.  He expressed concern that there might have been instances previously when Portfolio Holders had not always responded to members of the public when matters had been raised with them.  The Leader of the Council gave an assurance that if councillors wished to discuss any matter, they should simply ask the relevant Portfolio Holder directly and also let him know.  Cabinet members would do their utmost to engage with enquirers.

Councillor Pritchard commented that public perceptions were not always accurate.  Last year there had been some public disquiet on social media about communication with stakeholders regarding the town centre projects, yet the Council had in fact nurtured a good relationship with the various town centre stakeholders.

Resolved                                    -    To note the Portfolio Responsibilities for 2026/27, including the amendments indicated in the table above by the Leader of the Council.

Report attached.

Members considered a joint report of Councillors Stephen Button, Stewart Eaves and Clare Yates, 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 2026/27.

Councillor Button provided a brief introduction to the report and the draft work programmes, commenting on the reasons for narrowing down the full list of suggested topics and highlighting the final proposed items for consideration and the meeting date at which these would be considered.  Councillor Dad asked if the work programme would be flexible.. This was confirmed by Councillor Button.

Councillor Khan commented that none of the four public suggestions had been taken up, which was disappointing given that residents had engaged in the consultation exercise.  He also noted that suggestions regarding Digital Transformation/AI Usage and HMOs had been rejected, but that both topics could potentially have a significant impact on the Borough.  He expressed the view that individual overview and scrutiny meetings could potentially deal with more items of business without being overburdened, particularly as some reviews, such as Skip Days, might only require a light touch.  Councillor Jordan Fox also supported the inclusion of AI in the work programme, given its potential to create efficiencies within the organisation.  Councillor Button undertook to give the matter of additional topics in the work programme some further consideration in discussion with the other Chairs.  The Leader reminded all that the question of flexibility within the programme had already been answered.

The Leader indicated that it was proposed to seek an amendment to the terms of reference of the three overview and scrutiny committees at the Council meeting on 16^th July 2026.  The proposed changes would include Local Government Reorganisation within the remit of Resources OSC and Pride in Place/Neighbourhood Board within the remit of Communities and Wellbeing OSC (both functions currently being included within the remit of the Special Scrutiny Committee).

Approval of the report was not deemed 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  ...  view the full minutes text for item 41.

Report attached.

Members considered a report of Councillor Vanessa Alexander, Portfolio Holder for Resources and Council Operations, informing Cabinet of the draft financial spending of the Council up to the end of the financial year in March 2026.  Members were advised that a further report would be provided once all the work had been completed if there was any significant change to the position reported here.

Councillor Alexander provided a brief introduction to the report and highlighted the provisional underspend figure of £1.337m against an in-year working Budget of £17.401m. The underspend had been achieved, through good financial discipline and additional income generation.  The underspend would be transferred to reserves to alleviate pressures on the 2026/27 Budget and £150k would be made available to fund the survey for the Brookside project referred to at Agenda Item 14.  The closing balance level of reserves was robust, at some £25,093m.  The provisional outturn position was subject to external audit, but this provided a good platform for the on-going management of risk, future investment in the Borough and continuing stability of the Council’s finances.

The Leader noted the strong financial position and thanked the Portfolio Holder and officers for their hard work.  He noted that it might be possible to fund additional projects if finances remained strong.

Councillor Khan endorsed the Leader’s comments about strong financial management and thanked him for the continuing investment into the Brookside initiative.  He noted that income from garage rental and allotments was not reinvested directly into the development of those services and asked if other funding, such as s106 monies, could support them.  He also asked what the Council did to chase up non recoverable Housing Benefit claims.  Councillor Alexander undertook to look into question about funding for garages and allotments, but indicated that the services did not currently make a profit for the Council.  Regarding non-recoverable Housing Benefits, it was not possible to recover money from those who did not have it, nor did the Government reimburse the Council for those losses.  Checks were made to ensure that all claims were legitimate.  The reality was that there were significant pockets of deprivation in the Borough.  Councillor Melissa Fisher added that individuals who found themselves in difficult financial circumstances a should not be berated.

Approval of the report was not deemed a key decision.

Reasons for Decision

At the Full Council meeting on 27^th February 2025, Council had agreed the General Fund Revenue Budget for 2025/26.  This had set a budget for the Council’s total revenue spend in 2025/26 of £17.313m, however budget adjustments in year had resulted in a working budget of £17.401m.

The provisional revenue outturn position for the 2025/26 financial year was a total spend for the Council of £16.064m.  This gave a revenue underspend on net expenditure of (£1.337m) compared to the latest working budget.

Table 1: Actual Performance Against Budgets

Report attached.

The Cabinet considered a report of Councillor Vanessa Alexander, Portfolio Holder for Resources and Council Operations, providingan update on the Council’s Capital Programme.  It set out the outturn position for 2025/26 including variations to the budgets from those reported to Cabinet in January 2026.

Councillor Alexander provided a brief introduction to the report and highlighted the capital outturn position of £19.904m, which equates to 99.93% spend of the latest rephased budget.  This demonstrated efficient programme management on an overall programme of £56.146m the majority of which was being funded externally.  Some £36.230m had slipped into 226/27, principally due to rephasing of Huncoat Garden Village and Levelling Up Fund schemes.  Overall, there had been no need to rely on prudential borrowing, as a result of strong governance and investment income.  She thanked officers for their hard work.

The Leader reported that the controlling group had established a capital oversight group which had met on two occasions to date.  The aim of the group was to ensure good progression on delivery of the programme and to maintain an overview of the position.  Councillor Dad offered to share information from this body with the main Opposition groups.  The Capital Programme was very ambitious and the intention was to complete as much as possible before Local Government Reorganisation.

Councillor Khan acknowledged the need to maintain progress on delivery.  He also noted that s106 funding had accounted for £67,054 of the capital financing and asked whether this had been spent on projects within the locality of the original planning development.  Councillor Alexander confirmed that the Council tried to invest in projects in the same area.  A list of the relevant projects was available.  Councillor Judith Addison made the point that s106 funding was highly regulated and that developers could challenge the Council via arbitration if they believed that the amounts set were excessive.  In Hyndburn’s case, the imposition of s106 burdens could make certain projects unviable.  The Leader referred members to Paragraph 4.9.11 of the Revenue Budget Outturn Report (Minute 42 above  refers) for an explanation of the use of s106 funding.  Martin Dyson, Executive Director (Resources) undertook to provide information on s106 expenditure to Councillor Khan.

Approval of the report was not deemed a key decision.

Reasons for Decision

The Council had authorised new additions to the capital programme of £2.726m at its meeting on the 27^th February 2025.

Since the Council meeting in February 2025, new schemes totalling £30.820m 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 2024/2025 slipped £23.236m into 2025/2026, of which £12.5m related to the Levelling Up scheme for Accrington Town Centre, the Leisure Estate Investment and Housing Schemes, including Disabled Facilities Grants.

A further £0.633m of capital budgets had been removed from the capital programme.  As a result, the total approved Capital programme now totalled £56.148m.  The table below provided a breakdown:

Report attached.

Members considered a report of Councillor Vanessa Alexander, Portfolio Holder for Resources and Council Operations, updating Cabinet on the Treasury Management provisional outturn position for 2025/26.

Councillor Alexander provided a brief introduction to the report and highlighted that performance against the prudential indicators was within the limits set and that treasury management had delivered prudent and affective compliance.  There were some cost pressures due to leases, but overall risk from borrowing was low, the Council had strong liquidity and no new borrowing was being undertaken.

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 2025/2026 at its meeting in February 2025.

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 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 2025, in the same report referred to above, the Council had also set out and then had approved its current Treasury Management Strategy.  This had been 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 2025 report.

Prudential Indicators Monitoring

Appendix 1 of the report showed 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 provisional outturn balance sheet position as at 31^st March 2026 for treasury management activities was shown in the table below.

Table 1 - Forecast Treasury Balance Sheet Position 2025/26

It could be seen from the above table 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  ...  view the full minutes text for item 44.

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 2026/27 Municipal Year and appointing members to the Committees and Groups.

Councillor Dad provided a brief introduction to the report and announced some additional nominees (not included in the report) for the various bodies being established, which are included in Table 1 below.

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 took 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.  This 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, but met infrequently.  It was proposed to amend the name of the group to the Sustainability Working Group, to more closely reflect the wider aims of environmental sustainability and to align this body with a named area of responsibility set out in the Leader of the Council’s portfolio.  Save for the change of name, the terms of reference of the Working Group would remain unchanged.

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.

For 2026/27, it was also proposed that a review of the terms of reference of the Economic Policy Forum take place to ensure that this was closely aligning to the business area of responsibility within the Leader of the Council’s portfolio.  This body was not currently a formally constituted Cabinet group.  Discussions would be held on this proposal and a further report may be provided at a later date.

It was proposed that the bodies set out in Table 1  ...  view the full minutes text for item 45.

Report attached.

Members considered a report of Councillor Munsif Dad BEM JP, Leader of the Council, seeking Cabinet’s agreement to the winding-up of Growth Lancashire Limited and to the transfer of its services to Blackburn with Darwen Council.

Councillor Dad provided a brief introduction to the report, which included the background to the establishment of the company, its current governance arrangements, its area of work and the reasons for the proposed changes,  He noted the intention was for the services to continue under transitional arrangements administered by Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council prior to those services being transferred to the Lancashire Combined County Authority (LCCA).

Councillor Addison commented that heritage advice was sometimes provided by Growth Lancashire Limited (GLL) at this Council’s Planning Committee meetings.  Jane Ellis, Executive Director (Legal and Democratic Services) confirmed that this would have been carried out under a contract for heritage advice.  Councillor Khan enquired if Hyndburn Borough Council would be entitled to a share of the £387k reserves if the company was would up.  The Leader responded that it was likely that any balance of reserves would ultimately transfer to LCCA.

Approval of the report was not deemed a key decision.

Reasons for Decision

Growth Lancashire Limited (GLL) was a company established jointly by Blackburn with Darwen, Burnley, Hyndburn, Pendle, Rossendale Councils and Lancashire County Council.  Blackburn with Darwen Council had been accountable body for GLL’s external funding for 21 years.

The Board comprised of local authority and private sector directors, operating under Articles of Association that defined governance, ownership and operational arrangements.  The Council Leader was the Council’s nominated representative on GLL’s board of directors.

GLL provided a range of contracted business support and specialist planning services to partners and customers.  The councils from across Lancashire financially contributed on a subscription basis and / or purchased GL services.  Hyndburn’s recent annual contribution had been £15,000.  GLL was the only pan-Lancashire body that was financially supported and / or delivered paid for services in all Lancashire local authority areas.

In agreeing Lancashire’s devolution arrangements with Government, it had always been intended to integrate GLL within the Lancashire Combined County Authority (LCCA), once established.  With the development of the LCCA and with the prospect of Local Government Reorganisation (LGR), it was now considered the right time to reset and adapt the current arrangements for the provision of GLL’s services.  To this end, on 18^th March 2026, the board of GLL had agreed to wind-up the company and transfer the staff and financial reserves to Blackburn with Darwen Council as the accountable body.  The financial reserves would then be split between Blacburn with Darwen Council and the LCCA, at a later date.

The report, therefore, sought Cabinet’s formal agreement to the winding-up of the company.  Subject to all five founding members confirming their agreement to wind-up GLL, Blackburn with Darwen Council would manage its administrative closure.

Subject to the winding up of the company, Blackburn with Darwen Council would take temporary responsibility for GLL’s 7 business  ...  view the full minutes text for item 46.

Report attached.

The Cabinet considered a report of Councillor Munsif Dad BEM JP, Leader of the Council, providing an update on the progress of the Brookside Restoration Initiative for land in Council ownership at Stanhill, Oswaldtwistle.  The report also to sought budget provision as part of a funding package for site enhancements, assessments and specialist advice.  The actions proposed would fulfil the Council’s responsibilities under Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, both as a regulator and a responsible landowner.

Councillor Dad provided a brief introduction to the report, highlighting the support for the project, the additional investment proposed and the proposal to carry out site investigations.  The Council was taking a proactive approach to the issues identified and would commission specialist investigations.  Initial work had identified some contaminants at the site, which was consistent with the industrial heritage of the area.  The site would remain open for walkers during these works, but there would be some restrictions in place.  The Council remained committed to investigating and managing the issues identified and improving the site.  The intention was to circulate some information on this to councillors as soon as possible and to provide updates to the public via social media.

Councillor Khan welcomed the investment in this project and asked if additional National Lottery Heritage Fund monies might be available.  The Leader commented that the current budget proposal was for the survey only.  Anne Hourican, Senior Environmental Initiatives Officer, responded that the various capital allocations received so far were for the physical upgrades planned, such as the new entrance, etc.  Any Heritage Lottery bid would require match funding, which would need to be identified, and was not part of the current funding allocation.

Councillor Addison commented that the Methodist Chapel in the vicinity was now closed and that the building might be available for use in connection with the Brookside Initiative.  Ms Hourican indicated that the building had been used previously for some small community gatherings and this had been useful.  However, the chapel now had significant structural issues and the building was generally in a poor state of repair.  Any renovation of the Chapel would be a substantial additional project and would require specialist advice.

The Leader reported that he had asked Ms Hourican to keep him and Councillor Khan updated on developments.

Approval of the report was not deemed a key decision.

Reasons for Decision

Budget provision was required to support momentum of the Brookside Restoration Initiative, which was one of the Council’s most significant environmental enhancement projects.  Accessibility enhancements, including for mobility access, had been identified as the top priority in the extensive community engagement and survey activities.

Background

The site had been purchased by the Council in 2022 specifically to bring forward enhancement proposals.  This followed many years of lack of maintenance and decline in the site condition while it was in private ownership.  The Initiative was being progressed in tandem with external organisations and the local community.  It had already generated significant momentum, external funding of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 47.

Recommended                               That, in accordance with Regulation 4(2)(b) of the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Meetings and Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2012, the public be excluded from the meeting during the following items, when it is likely, in view of the nature of the proceedings that there will otherwise be disclosure of exempt information within the Paragraphs of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 specified at the items.

PART D: EXEMPT ITEMS

Portfolio Holder for Transformation and Town Centres (Councillor Clare Pritchard)

Resolved                                    –   That, in accordance with Regulation 4(2)(b) of the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Meetings and Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2012, the public be excluded from the meeting during the following items, when it is likely, in view of the nature of the proceedings that there will otherwise be disclosure of exempt information within the Paragraphs of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 specified at the items.

In accordance with Regulation 5(6)(a) of the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Meetings and Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2012, approval has been received from Councillor Stewart Eaves, Chair of the Communities and Wellbeing Overview and Scrutiny Committee, to the following decision being made by Cabinet on 24^th June 2026, in private, on the grounds that the decision is urgent and cannot reasonably be deferred.

Exempt information by virtue of Paragraph 3 - Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information)

Report attached.

In accordance with Regulation 5(6)(a) of the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Meetings and Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2012, approval had been received from Councillor Stewart Eaves, Chair of the Communities and Wellbeing Overview and Scrutiny Committee, to the following decision being made by Cabinet on 24^th June 2026, in private, on the grounds that the decision was urgent and could not reasonably be deferred.

Exempt information by virtue of Paragraph 3 – Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information).

Members considered a report of Councillor Clare Pritchard, Portfolio Holder for Transformation and Town Centres, seeking approval to a preferred approach for the operation of certain elements of Accrington Market Hall and approval for the necessary delegated authority to officers to explore the feasibility of what was being proposed.  Councillor Pritchard gave a brief introduction to the report, highlighting the rational for the proposals.

Councillors Fox and Khan asked a number of questions and made some observations, to which the Portfolio Holder and Leader of the Council responded.

Approval of the report was not deemed a key decision.

Reasons for Decision

The reasons for the decision were set out in the exempt report.

Alternative Options considered and Reasons for Rejection

The alternative options considered and reasons for rejection were set out in the exempt report.

Resolved                                   –   That the recommendations as set out in the exempt report be approved.