Agenda item
Question Time
To deal with any questions submitted under Council Procedure Rule A2.2(vi).
Details of any eligible questions received will be circulated following the expiration of the deadline for the receipt of questions. Questions must be submitted by no later than 12 noon on Monday 7th July 2025.
Report attached.
Minutes:
Twelve eligible questions had been received, which were set out in the report.
1) Determination of Planning Applications
To the Leader of the Council (Councillor Munsif Dad BEM JP) or relevant Portfolio Holder
Submitted by Councillor Zak Khan, on behalf of a resident, Vinette Davitt
“I would like to raise the following question at the next full Council meeting please.
The National Planning Portal says that the standard time for a decision is 8 weeks, but that this can be extended to 13 weeks if an Application is unusually large or complex.
The Government website says no more than 26 weeks for Major Applications.
11/24/0417 was registered with HBC Planning Dept on 5th November 2024, which I roughly calculate to be 31 weeks.
What is the reason for the delay, bearing in mind that HBC Planning Department could be penalised for allowing it to go over the Government's timescale for a complex Application?”
Response:
The Leader of the Council thanked the resident and Councillor Khan for the question. The standard target to determine a non-major planning application was 8 weeks and 13 weeks for a major application. 26 weeks was the maximum for a major application, unless a longer period had been agreed in writing. Normally, applications were decided within a shorter period. If the matter was complex it was proper to extend the time period.
The application identified by the questioner (a proposed burial ground to the south of Blackburn Road, Oswaldtwistle) was significant, complex and technical in nature, so both parties had agreed to an extension. Accordingly, the Council would not be penalised for the extended timeframe. This would allow the officer team time to consider all of the information available and to assess the application thoroughly, along with any objections, based on the local development plan and other relevant guidance.
Currently, the Planning Department was aiming to submit this application to the Planning Committee on 20 August 2025. However, officers were required to take all of the relevant issues into account, so it might be necessary to agree a longer timescale.
A supplementary question was asked by Councillor Khan on the following:
Councillor Khan acknowledged that the matter was both contentious and complex and had been over four years in the making. He noted that residents were concerned about the application and expressed the view that providing more time for consideration might give the applicant an advantage. He asked what specifically were the reasons for granting the extension and if he could have a copy of those details.
The Mayor commented that the total time allowed for all questions was 30 minutes and that a lengthy interaction on single question could adversely affect the time available to hear other questions and answers. In the light of this, Councillors Dad and Khan agreed to a written response being provided after the meeting.
2) Land on Albert Street in Oswaldtwistle
To the Leader of the Council (Councillor Munsif Dad BEM JP) or relevant Portfolio Holder
Submitted by Councillor Steven Smithson
“What are the Council’s plans for the land on Albert Street in Oswaldtwistle.”
Response:
The Leader of the Council replied that this was a small plot of land and that there had been some initial interest in the site from a housing developer. However, this proposal had subsequently fallen through. The Leader undertook to take into account the views of local residents and would keep Councillor Smithson updated about any new proposals.
A supplementary question was asked by Councillor Smithson on the following:
Councillor Smithson commented that the land in question had previously been hot spot for rubbish and dog fouling, but was currently a pleasant green space. He asked if relevant councillors and officers could meet to discuss whether a suitable use could be made of the existing green space.
The consent of the Mayor had been obtained in advance to the submission of two personal questions by Councillor Smithson.
3) Reinstatement of BMX Track off Harvey Street in Oswaldtwistle
To the Leader of the Council (Councillor Munsif Dad BEM JP) or relevant Portfolio Holder
Submitted by Councillor Steven Smithson
“Will this Council consider investing and bring back into use the old BMX track off Harvey Street in Oswaldtwistle.”
Response:
Councillor Stewart Eaves, Portfolio Holder for Environmental Services, indicated that it would be prohibitively expensive to bring the BMX track back into use at Harvey Street and that on-going maintenance costs would be high. However, it might be possible to invest in a pump track at a suitable alternative location. This type of facility would require less maintenance and could be used for other wheeled sports. The Harvey Street site was no longer suitable, as the overall strategy had changed. Modern sites need to be safe, overlooked and close to other facilities.
A supplementary question was asked by Councillor Smithson on the following:
Councillor Smithson thanked the Portfolio Holder for his response and acknowledged the stated position. He mentioned that he had spent many of his formative years on the BMX track. The infrastructure remained in place. Given that there was a significant amount of anti-social behaviour in Oswaldtwistle and the existing track was in a prime location, he enquired if both he and Councillor Gilbert could be involved discussions about its redevelopment.
Councillor Eaves undertook to provide a written reply.
4) Council Owned Garages
To the Leader of the Council (Councillor Munsif Dad BEM JP) or relevant Portfolio Holder
Submitted by Councillor Marlene Haworth
“On what does the money collected from the Council owned garages’ annual rent, get spent? Why do the garages’ plots, which are rented out commercially, not have a repairs and maintenance budget?”
Response:
The Leader of the Council indicated that during the 2025/26 financial year the Council would receive £19,700 income from its garage plot tenancies. The burden of expenditure fell against Allotment & Garage Service staff costs and Central Service Charges. There was no remaining room in the budget for expenditure against garage repair and maintenance costs, without further increasing garage rents. The service did hold a small allotment repair and maintenance budget of £4,000pa. On very rare occasions, where a matter need expediting, such as a dangerous garage building, the allotment budget had been used, but only as a matter of urgency.
A supplementary question was asked by Councillor Haworth on the following:
Councillor Haworth thanked the Leader for his promising response and asked whether he and the Cabinet would be prepared to look at providing a property budget to maintain the garages. She expressed a view that there were currently lots of repairs that need to be undertaken.
Councillor Dad agreed to look into the matter.
5) Land at Livingstone Road
To the Leader of the Council (Councillor Munsif Dad BEM JP) or relevant Portfolio Holder
Submitted by Councillor Zak Khan
“Is the Cabinet willing to open formal conversations with Accrington Stanley FC, in order to find a suitable arrangement for the additional land on Livingstone Road owned by Hyndburn Borough Council and adjacent to the WHAM Stadium, thereafter, allowing them to expand their operations and invest in their existing site? Alternative arrangements are already in place for existing occupants, which will allow all organisations to flourish.”“
Response:
Councillor Melissa Fisher, Deputy Leader and Portfolio Holder for Housing and Regeneration, confirmed that the Council had opened formal discussions with Accrington Stanley FC about their interest in the site at Livingston Road. The Council recognised that this was an opportunity, subject to the Football Cub’s interest and legal terms. However, the negotiations comprised commercially confidential information, which could not be discussed in public. She undertook to keep councillors informed, as appropriate.
A supplementary question was asked by Councillor Khan on the following:
Councillor Khan commented that he was pleased to note that the question appeared to have sparked some renewed action, but stated that, given that the conversions had been on-going for some time, he requested that a definitive timeline be established.
Councillor Melissa Fisher, Deputy Leader and Portfolio Holder for Housing and Regeneration, responded that she was unable to share this information at the current time, but would make this available, as appropriate.
6) King George V Playing Fields
To the Leader of the Council (Councillor Munsif Dad BEM JP) or relevant Portfolio Holder
Submitted by Councillor David Heap
“Please could the Portfolio Holder give an update on King George's playing fields?”
Response:
Councillor Stewart Eaves,Portfolio Holder for Environmental Services, reported that the tenders for the groundworks had been let and were due to be returned by Monday 21st July 2025. The tenders were due to be opened on the 22nd July 2025 and then evaluated, which should take approximately one week. Following this, a contractor would be appointed. Commencement on site was expected by 1st September 2025 and the works should take around 5 weeks to complete. In spring or summer 2026 the playing surface should be laid, with the playing fields available for sports from September 2026.
A supplementary question was asked by Councillor Heap on the following:
Councillor Heap thanked Councillor Eaves for his reply and noted that Accrington Wildcats Amateur Rugby League FC were interested in using the site. He referred to the fact that the club needed a home with a 25 year lease in order to attract sports funding. Councillor Heap added that he had spoken to residents last Tuesday to see if they would welcome the Wildcats being based on this site and the response had been positive. He asked if the Portfolio Holder would meet with local councillors, residents and representatives of the ARLFC to discuss this matter.
Councillor Eaves responded that, as a former rugby league player himself, he would be happy to meet with all concerned.
7) Campaign on Anti-Social Behaviour
To the Leader of the Council (Councillor Munsif Dad BEM JP) or relevant Portfolio Holder
Submitted byCouncillor David Heap on behalf of a resident, Jayde Holmes
“When are the Council going to announce that the Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) has cut Operation Centurion and what is going to replace it?”
Response:
Councillor Clare Pritchard, Portfolio Holder for Transformation and Town Centres, reported that the Council did not make announcements on matters that were the responsibility of the PCC. The Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner (OPCC) had its own Communications Team.
In any event, funding for Operation Centurion had not been cut in Hyndburn. The PCC had streamlined and focused the funding on specific areas that required intensive targeted work. In Hyndburn, this was Accrington town centre. To complement this, there was an uplift in resources for Community Beat Managers and PCSO’s. There was also a multi-agency targeted summer campaign that would commence when schools broke up with both statutory and voluntary agencies working together.
The Council held regular multi-agency meetings with all partners to ensure that everyone was directing the additional resource to the right place and at the right time. Partners included Accrington Stanley FC, Clayton Amateur Boxing Club, youth leaders and Hyndburn and Ribble Valley (HARV) Domestic Abuse Team. Further funding had also been agreed by the OPCC for small charities who were supporting the summer of action. Hyndburn had been successful in the majority of bids available. In addition, Councillor Kimberley Whitehead was the Deputy PCC and was well placed to champion Hyndburn’s cause.
The Portfolio Holder also highlighted a ‘Nice2Share’ event held recently by Lancashire Constabulary. The Police had procured a digital evidence management system, which would allow businesses and members of the public to register their CCTV and other recording devices into a community portal, which would allow faster communication of evidence to the Police.
8) Use of Glyphosate
To the Leader of the Council (Councillor Munsif Dad BEM JP) or relevant Portfolio Holder
Submitted by Councillor David Heap on behalf of a resident, Jayne Shirtcliffe
“Are HBC still allowing the widespread spraying of glyphosate in Hyndburn streets? Considering the millions of dollars in lawsuits and since it is considered carcinogenic is it still being used to spray pavement where animals and children play? Glyphosate is already banned in many local authorities.”
Response:
Councillor Stewart Eaves, Portfolio Holder for Environmental Services, responded that Hyndburn did use glyphosate for weed killing in its parks and on behalf of Lancashire County Council on roads and back streets. The substance remained approved for use by the EU until 2033. Other treatments such as hot foam, steam, acetic acid and mechanical methods were not as effective and took longer to apply.
9) Huncoat Garden Village
To the Leader of the Council (Councillor Munsif Dad BEM JP) or relevant Portfolio Holder
Submitted by Councillor David Heap on behalf of a resident, Nick Whittaker
“I would like to know about the link road for the proposed Huncoat Garden Village.... £30 million apparently, although this is to improve junction 8 of M65 and improve the roundabout near the Griffin. How do they propose to do all three with only £30m? It sounds a lot, but knowing roads are very expensive, how is this going to be completed? And with 2,000 homes being built, there will be at least 2,000 more cars, [so] how do the Council and new MP propose to get freight in/out of Huncoat as well?”
Response:
Councillor Melissa Fisher, Deputy Leader and Portfolio Holder for Housing and Regeneration, thanked Mr Whittaker and Councillor Heap for the question. She reported that she was happy to reassure the questioners that the cost for the highway infrastructure was fully accommodated within the £30m and from funding by other key stakeholders. A breakdown of the other funding could be provided upon request. For clarity:
- The estimated cost of the proposed relief road was £6.7m, which included improvements to the A56 roundabout.
- The full cost of the improvements to J8 on the M65 were being met by National Highways. The Council, was making a £2.19m contribution towards the cost.
Councillor Fisher was pleased, therefore, to advise that the highway costs were not as onerous as the questioners had imagined.
With regard to the second part of the question, reference was made to the Council Leader’s response to Councillor Khan’s similar question at a recent Cabinet meeting. This Council was promoting the Huncoat Garden Village project, which meant that the freight rail terminal could not proceed at Huncoat. Councillor Fisher advised that she was not in a position to respond on behalf of the MP.
10) Accrington Neighbourhood Board
To the Leader of the Council (Councillor Munsif Dad BEM JP) or relevant Portfolio Holder
Submitted by Councillor David Heap on behalf of a resident, Alexander Crook
“On the £20 million for Accrington Centre, our MP Sarah Smith said:
"I'm delighted that up to £20m has been set aside for Accrington.
This investment, part of the Labour Government's Plan for Change, will unlock our local area's potential and bring real benefits to our community.
With this funding, local people will have more control over decisions that affect them, reducing unnecessary interference from central Government.
This is the kind of positive change a Labour Government delivers, and I look forward to working with the Neighbourhood Board to make a real difference for residents."
Now having read this I actually sent an email to Ms Smith asking who would be invited to join this Board, as being born and bred in Accrington and [having] been a resident here for almost 64 years I’d like to be a candidate for a position…[ I] never got a reply.
So just who decided the board members and when were they elected?”
Response:
The Leader thanked Mr Crook and Councillor Heap for their question. He reported that Government guidelines stated that the Neighbourhood Board should be led by an independent Chair. A transparent application process had been followed in Spring 2025, which had resulted in two candidates being interviewed. The person appointed, Andy Tatchell, was the most suitable candidate and had a high level of experience of regeneration and political leadership.
The guidelines also stated that the core Neighbourhood Board must be the following:
- Elected Hyndburn MP
- Elected Lancashire County Councillor
- Elected Hyndburn Borough Councillor
- Senior representative from the Police – this is the Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner
Those persons were appointed directly to the Board ahead of its first meeting on 4 June 2025.
The addition of further Board representatives had been discussed and agreed at the first meeting, then those persons had also been invited to serve. Initially two representatives of the local business community, two in education and two with links to the community had been asked to join the Board. It was expected that the Board membership could change during the lifetime of the project, depending on the needs of the plan that was ultimately decided upon.
Biographies of the Board members would be published in the coming weeks along with registers of interest, which were currently being obtained.
A supplementary question was asked by Councillor Heap on the following:
He noted that the guidance required an independent Chair to be appointed and asked if the post-holder was a member of the Labour Party.
The Mayor advised caution when seeking personal information, which might be confidential, but the Chief Executive clarified that the question could be asked, as Board members interests would normally be in the public domain.
Councillor Dad responded that the Chair had been appointed on merit, as the most suitable candidate, and his political affiliations had not been a consideration.
11) Martholme Viaduct, Great Harwood
To the Leader of the Council (Councillor Munsif Dad BEM JP) or relevant Portfolio
Holder
Submitted by Councillor David Heap on behalf of a resident, Kevin Laycock
“Where are Hyndburn Council at with the long running project to fully reopen the Read end of the Martholme Viaduct in Great Harwood, for access and egress for walkers.
I have emailed several councillors this question and had no answer.
The reopening of the Viaduct would be a great asset to Hyndburn green space, which could be linked into another long distance walk around Hyndburn to add to the wonderful Hyndburn clog walk.
It would encourage people to get out and exercise, which has been proved to help with physical and mental well-being”
Response:
Councillor Scott Brerton, Portfolio Holder for Business, Growth and Sustainability, thanked Mr Laycock and Councillor Heap for their question. As noted, the Great Harwood end of Martholme Viaduct was fully open, in no small measure due to the support of former MP, Graham Jones, and Councillor Noordad Aziz. There remained an on-going campaign by interested groups to secure the opening of the Read side of the viaductand for the completion of the Martholme Greenway to meet Sustrans Route 685 (The Padiham Greenway). A motion in support of this action had been passed by this Council in June 2023. Netherton ward councillors, Noordad Aziz and Jodi Clements, remained committed to supporting the reopening of the route. The Council had written recently to Lancashire County Council to confirm that commitment.
There was no supplementary question, but Councillor Heap commented as follows:
Councillor Heap praised Mr Laycock’s enthusiasm as a keen supporter of the reopening of this walking route.
The Portfolio Holder summarised by indicating that Hynbdurn Borough council had done all that it could with regard to the viaduct. The matter lay with Ribble Valley Borough Council in whose area the closed section of the route lay and Lancashire County Council who were responsible for footpaths and cycleways. Furthermore, the land in question was currently in private ownership.
12) Hyndburn Leisure
To the Leader of the Council (Councillor Munsif Dad BEM JP) or relevant Portfolio Holder
Submitted by Councillor Zak Khan on behalf of a resident, Peter Shaw
“What operational changes has the Council made to Hyndburn Leisure as a result of the monitoring process that the Council set up and what indications are there that these changes will be financially successful?”
Response:
Councillor Melissa Fisher, Deputy Leader and Portfolio Holder for Housing and Regeneration, indicated that the Council and Leisure Trust were working together to develop an aligned vision and a shared plan. Regular financial meetings now took place between Hyndburn Leisure and Councillor Vanessa Alexander, Portfolio Holder for Council Operations, on top of the existing meetings attended by Councillor Fisher herself as relevant Portfolio Holder for leisure in Hyndburn. The format of reporting had been updated to quarterly. The Council had agreed that the Trust model of delivery would continue.
Improvements were already under way. The Trust would buy its own energy supplies, rather than the Council procuring energy on its behalf, which would generate a saving. Overall, the intention was to reduce in the operational subsidy required by the Trust. Additional external investment had already been received by the Trust and further funding had been applied for. As a charity, the Trust was able to access funding not available to the Council. It was also hoped to extend the level of expertise within the Trust’s Board.
Supporting documents:
PDF 107 KB