Agenda and draft minutes

Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of Councillors Vanessa Alexander, Ethan Rawcliffe and standing invitee Danny Cassidy, as Joint Deputy Leader of the Opposition.

In connection with Agenda Item 3 – Local Government Reorganisation Proposals, Councillors Scott Brerton and Kimberley Whitehead made the meeting aware that their terms of office expired in 2026, at which time they would be eligible for re-election.  The report at Item 3 included a recommendation to request the Secretary of State to postpone the local elections due to be held in May 2026.  The Executive Director (Legal and Democratic Services) advised that it was useful to note this connection on the record, but that it was unlikely to be considered a disclosable pecuniary interest or a conflict of interest, as the final decision on this matter would be for the Government to make.

There were no formal declarations of interest or declarations of dispensations submitted.

Report attached.

The full Business Case for the 3 Unitary Authority Model is available by clicking the following link:

https://www.hyndburnbc.gov.uk/download/lgr-the-business-case-for-three-unitary-authories-in-lancashire/

With the approval of the Mayor in advance of the meeting, the following decision was exempted from the Council’s Call-In procedure in accordance with Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rule C14, on the grounds that the decision was reasonable in all the circumstances and was an urgent decision not subject to Call-In, in view need to finalise the submission of the proposals to the Government by 28^th November 2025.

Members considered a report of Councillor Munsif Dad BEM JP, Leader of the Council, updating Cabinet on preparations to submit a proposal for Local Government Reorganisation to the Government and presenting the business case that had been prepared to support the creation of three unitary authorities in Lancashire (3UA).

The Leader provided a brief introduction to the report, highlighting the overall aim of the proposals, the work undertaken in Hyndburn to date, the key messages from the case for a 3UA model and the disadvantages of the other models being proposed.  Councillor Dad also summarised the discussions which had taken place at the Resources Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 11^th November and at the Council meeting on 13^th November 2025.  He also outlined the case in favour of postponing the local elections in 2026 and the next steps in the overall processand timescales.

Councillor Kimberley Whitehead spoke in favour of the 3UA model, which was conterminous with NHS and Police area footprints.  Councillor Zak Khan noted that most points had been discussed at the Council meeting.  He also agreed with the 3 UA model, but his main concerns centred around the consultations and evidence base and a sense that the matter was being rushed through without clarity about what the people of Hyndburn wanted.  Information available at the Resources Overview and Scrutiny Committee had only showed the postcodes of consultation respondents.  He asked whether more detailed information on views from particular areas was known, whether young people’s views a had been taken into account and whether the 3UA preferred option discussed some 12 months ago had always been the end goal.  He also queried the Government’s purpose in asking councils for their views on the local elections, if this was a matter solely for the Government to determine.  He expressed a view that councillors serving, even for a short period of time, could still achieve much during their tenure.

Councillor Dad responded that, councillors whose term of office was due to expire in 2026 had been consulted about the elections issue.  There were precedents elsewhere for the postponement of local elections due to reorganisation, such as for Surrey County Council in 2025 and in Cumbria (for Cumbria County Council, Carlisle City Council and South Lakeland District Council) in 2021.  The decision was for the Government to take.  Hyndburn was submitting its comments on this matter and believed that postponement was the right decision.  On the question of the 3UA model, this had initially been considered to be the best option and the public and Opposition members had been  ...  view the full minutes text for item 224.

Report attached.

With the approval of the Mayor in advance of the meeting, the following decision was exempted from the Council’s Call-In procedure in accordance with Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rule C14, on the grounds that the decision was reasonable in all the circumstances and was an urgent decision not subject to Call-In, in view need to finalise the submission of the Plan to the Government by 28^th November 2025.

Councillor Whitehead declared a personal interest in this item as a member of the Board representing the Police and Crime Commissioner for Lancashire.

Members considered a report of Councillor Munsif Dad BEM JP, Leader of the Council, presenting the Accrington Neighbourhoods Board’s Regeneration Plan before this was submitted to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG).

The Leader of the Council gave a brief introduction to the report, including a summary of the Board’s membership, the Government’s Pride in Place agenda and funding streams and the Plan’s foundations building on the existing Masterplan for Accrington.  He also highlighted the four pillars, as set out within the Pan, and noted that the first payment for project delivery was due to be received in April 2026.

Councillor Khan welcomed the additional funding and thanked the Leader for his role in the appointment of a new independent Chair to the Board.  He placed on record his thanks to the previous Chair, whom he knew personally and whom he respected, and wished him well for the future.  Councillor Khan then enquired about the following:

• What reassurance was there that the Board and its processes would remain independent and would it be free to make its own recommendations;
• Whether the Board’s recommendations would be taken forward as submitted, or would they be subject to alteration;
• How consultations with residents would be supported;
• Whether previous plans would be acknowledged and how previously identified projects could be prioritised so that some could commence straight away;
• How the Council would attract in additional private investment to add to the £20M Fund; and
• Whether the Board’s actions would be subject to the Council’s overview and scrutiny arrangements.

Councillor Dad responded that the original appointee to the role of Chair was also an independent person, as stated on previous occasions.  He added that the Board itself was independent, but was supported by a range of stakeholders including the Borough Council.  The Council would consider the Board’s proposals favourably but, as the accountable body, had certain obligations.  It was hoped to be able to improve marketing of the Board’s work, in conjunction with publicity for the other town centre projects.  Consultations had already taken place with schools, colleges and businesses and a video had recently been produced.  Use would be made of existing plans and work undertaken previously.  The intention was to attract in other money wherever possible.  The Board’s work would be monitored by the Cabinet, but the Cabinet’s decisions would then be subject to scrutiny in the usual way.

Councillor Whitehead reiterated the independence of the Board,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 225.

Report attached.

Members considered a report of Councillor Vanessa Alexander, Portfolio Holder for Resources and Council Operations, providing an update on the Council’s treasury management activities for the current financial year.  The report outlined the performance of investments and borrowing, assessed compliance with the approved Treasury Management Strategy, and highlighted any emerging risks or opportunities that might impact the Council’s financial position.  Overall, this report supported effective budget monitoring and ensured transparency and accountability in the management of public funds.

In the absence of Councillor Alexander, the Leader of the Council provided a brief introduction to the report which was largely technical in nature.  Councillor Dad highlighted the total of short-term investments, £38.675m, and how the Council invested.  He also drew attention to the forecast interest rates and the interest returns expected by the Council in the sum of £1.287m.

Councillor Zak Khan queried the relationship between the Council’s borrowing and investments and any timescales applicable to the Council’s main funding pressures (as outlined in the Revenue Monitoring report at Agenda Item 6), particularly in the light of the impending Local Government Reorganisation.  Councillor Dad confirmed that these pressures were carefully monitored and should be deliverable without the need for additional borrowing.  However, the outcome of the Fair Funding review was still awaited.  The Chief Executive confirmed that even under the worst-case scenario envisaged in the Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS), the Council should not need additional borrowing.  Jane Ellis, Executive Director (Legal and Democratic Services) indicated that the Government was likely to make an Order under s.24 of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007, which would be effective from April 2027 and would give the new shadow unitary authority powers of veto over certain expenditure by the councils due to be abolished.  This might cover disposal of assets over £100k, revenue expenditure over £100k and capital expenditure over £1m.

Approval of the report was not deemed a key decision.

Reasons for Decision

Local authorities were required to manage their borrowing, investments, and cash flows in a way that was affordable, prudent, and sustainable.  This was governed by the CIPFA Prudential Code and the CIPFA Treasury Management Code of Practice, which together set the framework for how councils planned and monitored their capital financing and treasury activities.

As part of this framework, councils had to set Prudential Indicators each year to support decision-making around capital investment and borrowing.  These indicators helped demonstrate that the Council’s plans were financially sound and that risks were being managed appropriately.

The Council also adopted a Treasury Management Strategy annually, which outlined how it would manage borrowing, investments, and cash balances throughout the year.  Regular monitoring reports were required to track performance against the strategy and indicators, and to provide assurance that treasury activities remained aligned with the Council’s financial objectives.

Borrowing Activities During the Period

Table 1 below showed the current borrowing position at Q2 2025/26 compared with the original estimate.  An increase in finance leases relating to vehicle purchases had  ...  view the full minutes text for item 226.

Report attached.

The Cabinet considered a report of Councillor Vanessa Alexander, Portfolio Holder for Resources and Council Operations, updating Cabinet on the Council’s financial performance up to the end of September 2025 for the 2025/26 financial year and outlining the projected impact on the Medium-Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) covering the period 2025/26 to 2027/28.

In the absence of Councillor Alexander, the Leader of the Council provided a brief introduction to the report.  He highlighted that the latest forecast outturn showed a small surplus of £9k.  The most significant changes since Q1 were shown in Table 3 of the report.  Table 12 within the report showed healthy usable balances of £18.996M, of which £1.877M in the General Fundwas unallocated.  Overall, the Council’s finances were on track.

Members thanked the officer team and relevant Portfolio Holder for their sound financial management.

Approval of the report was not deemed a key decision.

Reasons for Decision

Revenue Budget Forecast 2025/26

At its meeting on 27^th February 2025, the Council had agreed the General Fund Revenue Budget for 2025/26.  This had set a budget for the Council’s total spend in 2025/26 of £17.313m plus £0.121m use of reserves, in lieu of business rate receipts.

The current forecast spend to the end of the financial year in March 2026 was £17.426m.  This brought the forecast underspend for the year against the budget to £0.009m.  Further analysis of changes in forecast spend were shown in Section 4 of the report.

Table 1 below showed the working budget and forecast outturn by service area.

Table 1: Forecast Outturn Variance - Summary by Service Area

Table 2 below showed the change in forecast by service area compared to the previous quarter.

Table 2: Change in Forecast Outturn – Summary by Service Area

Table 3, which was set out in the report, showed details of the most  ...  view the full minutes text for item 227.

Report attached.

Members considered a report of Councillor Vanessa Alexander, Portfolio Holder for Resources and Council Operations, providing an update on the delivery and financial performance of the capital programme as at Quarter 2 of 2025/26, highlighting progress against budget, identifying any variances, risks or slippage and forecasting the expected outturn.  Overall, the report supported effective decision-making, ensured transparency and accountability, and informed any necessary adjustments to project timelines, funding allocations, or future financial planning.

In the absence of Councillor Alexander, the Leader of the Council provided a brief introduction to the report, highlighting the figures set out at Table 1 of the report showing approved projects in 2025/26 of £2.726m and in-year additions of £53.541m giving a proposed programme of £56.276m for 2025-28, of which £29.957 would be the working capital budget for 2025/26, with the remainder slipped into future years.  Of the approved capital spend in 2025/26 some £12.598m had been committed as at Quarter 2.

Councillor Zak Khan asked if the amount of underspend of £0.428m referred to in Paragraph 4.6 of the report, could be reallocated to be spent on other projects in-year, or if it would only be considered at year end for slippage into future years.  Councillor Dad and Martin Dyson, Executive Director (Resources) indicated that the majority of the anticipated underspend related to Accrington town centre projects and was likely to slip into next year’s programme.  Members and officers were not aware of any alternative capital projects deliverable in-year.

Approval of the report was not deemed a key decision.

Reasons for Decision

2025/26 Capital Budget

The Capital Budget for 2025/26 was Year One of the Capital Programme 2025/26 – 2027/28.  At the Council meeting on 27^th February 2025, Members approved a capital budget for 2025/26 of £2.726m.

A further £23.236m had been added to this budget from rephased capital projects carried forward from 2024/25.  Of this, £19.370m related to major projects, such as the Levelling Up funded schemes for Accrington town centre and the Leisure Estate Investment programme.

Ad hoc budget adjustments had reduced the Capital programme by £0.157m.  Of which, £0.178m had been removed from the Capital Programme relating to a UK Shared Prosperity Fund (UKSPF) funding adjustment.  A further £0.021m of capital receipts funding had been added, which was brought forward from 2024/25.

Approval had been received at Q1 to add a further £29.780m to the capital programme.  Of which, £29.187m was for the scheme at Huncoat Garden Village (HGV), which was fully funded from external grants.  £0.500m related to the addition of solar panels at the Market Hall, which was funded from reserves.  £0.094m related to several smaller projects.

The report requested a further £0.681m to be added to the Capital Programme at Q2.  £0.115m related to Parks & Open Spaces, on projects such as improvements at Lowerfold Park and Bullough Park, which were mostly funded by grants, contributions, and earmarked reserves.

£0.120m was the Council’s contribution to the repurposing of Mercer Hall and £0.010m was for the purchase of vehicles & equipment  ...  view the full minutes text for item 228.