Agenda item

Report attached.

 

Rules of Debate

 

·         Each motion shall be debated for no more than 20 minutes before being put to the vote.

·         No more than one and a half hours in totality shall be allowed at each meeting for the debate of all motions.

2)      Civic Theatre

 

The following motion was proposed by Councillor Peter Britcliffe and seconded by Councillor Steven Smithson under Council Procedure Rule A9:

 

“That this Council recognises what a vital asset the Civic Theatre is to the Borough and requests that the Cabinet fully explores the options which will lead to the reopening of the premises.”

 

Councillors Britclifffe, Z Khan, Dad, Allen, Smithson, Aziz, Booth and Addison spoke in favour of the motion and highlighted the importance of the venue to the promotion of arts and culture and the provision of entertainment in the Borough.

 

Councillor Pratt commented as follows on the state of the infrastructure and the work undertaken so far, or planned, to return the building into use:

 

The building was in a poor condition with no service or repair records available and, potentially, no recent health and safety compliance checks carried out.  The Council’s priority now was to get the building into a condition where a new lease could be granted and the premises put back into use.  To date, the following actions had been undertaken:

 

• Building cleared of all rubbish, broken and damaged furniture and unwanted props left by the former tenant.  Any furniture in good condition had been retained for possible future use;
• Gas and electrical installations had been tested and were now confirmed as safe;
• The lighting, heating and air-conditioning had been assessed as inadequate and would require upgrading over time;
• A fire risk assessment had been carried out in December 2023.  A specialist survey of fire doors and the fire resistance of the walls, floor and ceilings, lift shafts and glass in doors and partitions, now need to be undertaken;
• Water had been turned off and legionella testing, etc. would need to be done before the building could be re-let or handed over; and
• A condition survey of the roof was planned at the end of January 2024, which should highlight the cost of remediation work.

 

Overall the Council would need to understand what costs would be involved before the building could be put back into use.

 

As regards identification of an operator, little had been done at this stage in view of the above situation.  However, contact had been made with approximately 10 potentially suitable operators.  There had been around 10 parties contacting the Council directly to express an interest in the Civic Theatre, all of which had been followed up.  However, officers had stressed that the building was currently undergoing significant repairs and maintenance and, therefore, was not yet ready for reoccupation.  The authority had stressed that, when the time was right, it would be looking for credible operators with the necessary skills and resources to operate and manage a theatre.  There would be no further action on identifying an operator until the surveys, servicing and urgent repairs had been completed.

 

The Council was still carrying out a number of surveys and health and safety compliance checks in order to understand the full state of the building and what costs might be involved.  This would include checking the condition of loads and connections of ropes to all suspended items, such as chandeliers, stage lights, equipment, speakers, etc. which might incur additional costs.

 

It should also be noted that whist the building remained empty the Council was incurring vacant property costs (including business rates, insurance, energy costs, alarm testing, gas and electricity).

 

In summary, the Civic Theatre was an old and complex building with complex and specialist needs.  The Council was progressing its resurrection as quickly as possible.

 

Councillor Dad expressed disappointment that the facility could have been allowed to reach the point of closure.  Councillor Aziz commented that grant funding had been provided to Hyndburn Arts Ltd in the past and might have been considered again.

 

Councillor Booth mentioned a partnership between Oswaldtwistle Civic Society and the Lancashire Family History and Heraldry Society (LFHHS), who wanted to bring the society’s archive to Hyndburn.  There might be potential in the future for LFHHS to hold conferences at the Civic Theatre.

 

Councillor Addison noted that the Council normally only leased its premises on the basis of full repair responsibilities falling to the lessee.  Given the size and age of the Civic Theatre building it would be difficult for a small operator or charity to meet those costs.  Consideration should be given to any future lease being on more realistic terms.

 

Councillor Britcliffe summed up by indicating that the cost of mothballing the building would be around £60k per annum.  It might, therefore, be in the Council’s best interests to explore a lease under which the Council retained responsibility for external repairs to ensure its viable operation.  Unfortunately, the request for financial assistance, in the sum of £50k, from the previous operator had only been received in July and would only have assured the Civic Theatre’s continued operation until the end of July.  At that point, the building had fallen into a poor condition and there were issues in relation to public safety.  Accordingly, there was no reasonable alternative other than to allow the building to close.  However, there was now an opportunity to start afresh.

 

On being put to the vote the MOTION was CARRIED.

 

Resolved                                    -    That this Council recognises what a vital asset the Civic Theatre is to the Borough and requests that the Cabinet fully explores the options which will lead to the reopening of the premises.

 

3)      UN Conference of the Parties (COP28) Resolution

 

The following motion was proposed by Councillor Zak Khan and seconded by Councillor Loraine Cox under Council Procedure Rule A9:

 

“That this Council fully supports the COP28 Resolution to move away from fossil fuels.”

 

Councillor Z Kahn spoke to introduce the motion, which he stated was intended to highlight the global need to decarbonise and the journey towards net zero emissions.  He had been fortunate to able to attend the COP28 conference.  Some of the discussions there had focussed on innovations in new cities that were developing.  However, it was more difficult for established urbanisations, such as those in the UK, to reach net zero, as the infrastructure was older.  Notwithstanding the challenges, progress had to be made.

 

The Council should recognise what it had achieved so far, including:

 

• the Chief Executive and other officers already being strong advocates for net zero;
• a new Home Energy Reduction Officer had been appointed to advise on efficiencies and grant funding available in respect of the existing housing stock;
• significant decarbonisation schemes had already been undertaken in Council owned premises;
• Support was being provided to businesses about decarbonisation; and
• Natural spaces were being protected and made accessible to the public, such as Bury Meadows.

 

The Council was leading on this approach, which had strong cross-party support.

 

Councillors Short, Booth, Aziz, P Cox and J Allen spoke in favour of the motion.  Councillor Short noted with disappointment that the Government had recently granted further licences for fossil fuel extraction in the North Sea.  Councillors Booth and Aziz spoke about the need for incentives for new build projects to incorporate green technology, such as solar panels.  Councillor P Cox highlighted the need for improved infrastructure to switch to electric vehicles and the challenges of providing charging points in areas with terraced properties, which were numerous in Hyndburn.

 

On being put to the vote the MOTION was CARRIED.

 

Resolved                                    -    That this Council fully supports the COP28 Resolution to move away from fossil fuels.

 

4)      Opposition to the Increase in Spouse Visa Minimum Income Requirement to £38,700

 

The following motion was proposed by Councillor Abdul Khan and seconded by Councillor Jodi Clements under Council Procedure Rule A9:

 

“The Council recognises, the proposed increase in the spouse visa minimum income requirement ultimately to £38,700 will impose undue financial burdens on Hyndburn residents, seeking to reunite with their families.

 

Hyndburn Borough Council resolves to advocate for fair and accessible immigration policies that prioritise family reunification without imposing exorbitant financial barriers.

 

Hyndburn Borough resolves to write to HM Government strongly opposing the aforementioned increase.

 

Therefore, we agree for the Mayor to write to the Government expressing our concerns and opposition to the proposed income hike for spouse visas.”

 

Councillor Abdul Khan read out the motion as above.  Councillor Mohammed Younis noted that the current minimum income requirement was £18,600, which would rise to £29k in April 2024 and again to around £38,700 after the end of 2024.  He considered that the figure should be linked to the National Living Wage, which was £11.44 (for age 21 and over) giving a weekly wage of £412 for a 36 hour week and approximately £21,500 per annum.  Councillor Younis asked whether the mover of the original motion might be prepared to alter the third paragraph of the motion to read as follows:

 

“Hyndburn Borough resolves to write to HM Government strongly opposing the proposed increase and proposes instead that the income threshold should be set at the level of the prevailing minimum wage.”

 

With the consent of the Mover and Seconder, the meeting agreed to the alteration proposed.

 

Councillors Clements, Aziz and Dad spoke in favour of the motion and gave examples of key workers, relatives and others who would have been adversely affected by the current policy if it had been in place previously.

 

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule A16.5, six Members present requested a recorded vote on the motion.

 

The MOTION was then put to the VOTE.

 

For the Motion

 

Councillors Judith Addison, Noordad Aziz, Mike Booth, Scott Brerton, Steve Button, Andrew Clegg, Jodi Clements, Loraine Cox, Paul Cox, Munsif Dad BEM JP, Bernard Dawson MBE, Melissa Fisher, Terry Hurn (Mayor), Abdul Khan, Sajid Mahmood, Colin McKenzie, Caroline Montague, Dave Parkins, Paddy Short, Kate Walsh, Kimberley Whitehead.and Mohammed Younis

 

Against the Motion

 

Councillor Zak Khan

 

Abstentions

 

Councillors Josh Allen,Peter Britcliffe, Danny Cassidy,Peter Edwards, Carole Haythornthwaite, Kath Pratt andSteven Smithson

 

Accordingly, the MOTION was CARRIED.

 

Resolved                                 -      That the Council:

 

(1)    Recognises that the proposed increase in the spouse visa minimum income requirement ultimately to £38,700 will impose undue financial burdens on Hyndburn residents, seeking to reunite with their families.

 

(2)    Advocates for fair and accessible immigration policies that prioritise family reunification without imposing exorbitant financial barriers.

 

(3)    Agrees to write to HM Government strongly opposing the proposed increase and proposes instead that the income threshold should be set at the level of the prevailing minimum wage.

 

(4)    Requests the Mayor to write to the Government expressing the Council’s concerns and opposition to the proposed income hike for spouse visas.

 

The Mayor thanked all for their attendance.

 

The Chief Executive announced that the date of the next meeting, the Council Budget Meeting, had been changed following consultation with the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and