Agenda item

Report attached.

Members considered a report of Councillor Noordad Aziz, Deputy Leader and Portfolio Holder for Transformation, Education and Skills, in respect of recent executive decisions taken as a matter of urgency where the decision could not be delayed until the next meeting of the Cabinet and which had, therefore, been exempted from the Call-In Procedure

Councillor Aziz provided a short introduction to the report.  He also indicated that a member of the public had submitted some questions directly to him about one of the decisions, to which he would respond.  The responses are provided under the relevant heading below.

Paragraph B16 of the Executive Procedure Rules provided that urgent executive decisions which could not be delayed until the next meeting of the executive, or executive committee (as the case may be), might be taken by the relevant chief officer after consultation with the following:

• Leader;
• Deputy Leader;
• Relevant portfolio holder (if any) or any other cabinet member if there was no relevant portfolio holder in respect of the decision in question;
• The Mayor pursuant to Rule C14 of the Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rules;
• Plus one of the following:

o    the Chief Executive; or

o    the Deputy Chief Executive (in the absence of the Chief Executive or if the Chief Executive was the decision taker) or

o    the Monitoring Officer (in the absence of the Chief Executive and Deputy Chief Executive or if one was absent and the other was the decision taker)

Rule C14 of the Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rules set out the provisions allowing for a period of Call-In by members of a relevant Overview and Scrutiny Committee, in respect of certain executive decisions.  That Paragraph included the detailed procedures which supported this arrangement.

Notwithstanding the above Rule, Paragraph C14(i) stated that the call-in procedure should not apply where the decision being taken by the executive was urgent.  A decision would be urgent if any delay likely to be caused by the call in process would seriously prejudice the Council’s or the public interest.  The record of the decision and notice by which it was made public should state whether in the opinion of the decision making person or body, the decision was an urgent one, and therefore not subject to call-in and the reason for that opinion.  The Mayor would have to agree both that the decision proposed was reasonable in all the circumstances and to it being treated as a matter of urgency prior to the decision being taken.  Provision was also made for consent to be obtained in the absence of the Mayor.

In addition to the above, Paragraph C14(i) stated that decisions taken as a matter of urgency would have to be reported to the next available meeting of the Council, together with the reasons for urgency.  Previously, compliance with this Rule had been actioned by reference to the Cabinet minutes reported to Council, which included a list of any urgent decisions taken.  However, it was considered that this did not fully comply with the requirements of Rule C14(i), with regard to the need to report the reason for urgency to Council.  Accordingly, it was proposed to strengthen oversight of the use of the urgency procedure (and the disapplication of the Call-In procedure) by providing a more comprehensive update report to Council.

The following urgent executive decisions had been taken within the last reporting period:

(a)       Hyndburn Borough Council Shirt Sleeve Sponsorship Agreement with Accrington Stanley Women’s Football Team

The decision and reason for urgency were as summarised below:

Decision

That Cabinet agree to authorise the sponsorship by the Council of Accrington Stanley Women Football Club at a cost of £4,000 (plus VAT if applicable) in respect of the period from 1st November 2024 until 31st October 2025, on the basis set out in the report and delegates authority to the Executive Director (Legal & Democratic Services) to agree and execute a sponsorship agreement.

Reason for Urgency

The Agreement must be approved and signed by the 30^th November 2024 and cannot wait until the next Cabinet meeting takes place.

(b)       Leisure Transformation Project - Wilson Playing Fields Site

This report contained exempt information in accordance with Paragraph 5 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 – Information in respect of which a claim to legal professional privilege could be maintained in legal proceedings.  The decision and reason for urgency were as summarised below:

Decision

(1)     To accept further grant funding of £240,000 from Sport England to assist the re-starting of the works,

(2)     To agree to direct the sum identified in the report and the use of contingency sums towards meeting the additional costs of completing the project, and

(3)     To agree to give Alliance Leisure Services Ltd the instruction to appoint Universal Civils & Build Ltd to complete the works.

Reason for Urgency

Time was of the essence to give Alliance, the Council’s appointed project manager, the instruction to appoint the replacement contractor no later than Friday 13^th December 2024 to facilitate a restart on site on 6^th January 2025.  In order to do this Cabinet needed to consider and approve the funding proposals as described in the main report.  Delays beyond these key dates would result in additional construction costs of £237,400 and security costs of £12,700 per month, together with probable insurance costs to insure the site.

Questions

The following is a summary of the questions submitted by a member of the public to the Portfolio Holder and the responses given:

Question 1 - What grant application process was used to apply for a further £240,000 from Sport England?  Sport England have now granted, in total, £2.640m to the Wilson's project.  What are the restrictions that Sport England have imposed on the Council in using this funding?

Response: No additional restrictions had been placed on the use of the funding.  Sport England were a key strategic partner.  Given the priority of tackling health inequalities, including obesity, the need for sports facilities was recognised.  Accordingly, Sport England had provided an additional 10% of funds.  The Council would continue to seek to maximise funding opportunities for local sports facilities.

Question 2 - What are the additional costs of the Wilson’s project following the collapse of ISG?

Response: The controlling administration was clear that there should be no additional costs to the Council due to the loss of the contractor.  The Council, therefore, had worked closely with Alliance Leisure and Sport England to achieve this result.  The additional grant funding received would be sufficient to cover any future costs.

Question 3 - ISG went into administration on 19^th September 2024 and 2 months later, around 12^th November, Universal Civils & Build Ltd were appointed to replace them.  In this short timeframe, what process did Alliance Leisure go through before appointing Universal? What input did the Council have on this appointment?  What other construction companies were investigated prior to Universal’s appointment?

Response: The Council’s contract for overall delivery of the project was with Alliance Leisure.  That organisation had followed the appropriate framework to procure a new construction company.  Alliance had existing contracts with Universal Civils and Build Ltd.  The Council had also looked into the financial health of the new partner and was satisfied that the Council would not be exposed to additional risk.

Councillors Khan and Younis confirmed that they were in agreement with the decisions taken.  Councillor Whitehead highlighted the engagement of the Council with Accrington Stanley Women FC and their positive contribution to sport for women and girls.  The Council was always keen to support grassroots sport.  Councillor Dad thanked Councillor Aziz for his work to secure the recommencement of constriction at the Wilson Sports Hub.

Resolved                                    -    To note the report on recent executive decisions taken as a matter of urgency.

The Mayor asked the permission of the meeting for a brief adjournment, which was granted.

The meeting recommenced at 9.00pm.