Agenda item

To receive the Minutes of the Cabinet meeting held on 18^th June 2025 (attached).

Rules of Debate

·         The Leader of the Council will move the Minutes, the Deputy Leader of the Council will second the Minutes.

·         Non-executive Members will be invited to make comment or ask questions on the Minutes (5 Minutes).

·         Cabinet Members will be invited to make comments and respond to any points raised (5 Minutes).

·         The Leader of the Council will be given up to 15 Minutes to respond and to answer any questions raised.

The minutes of the meeting of the Cabinet held on 18^th June 2025 were submitted.

The following matters were raised:

In connection with Minute 46 - Waste Transfer Station, Councillor Steven Smithson sought clarification around information published recently by Lancashire County Council (LCC).  LCC had announced that the Whinney Hill landfill site was closing and that their contract with Suez was not being extended beyond March 2026, but this information had already been released previously.  However, it was understood that landfill operations would continue at this site, which was owned by Suez.  He asked if the Council was aware of any plans in place for the future of LCC’s Altham Household Waste Recycling Centre based at Whinney Hill.

Councillor Stewart Eaves, Portfolio Holder for Environmental Services, responded that, following the end of the waste disposal contract at Whinney Hill, his preference was for the use of a waste transfer station for collected waste in Hyndburn.  Other options included use of the landfill site at Fleetwood or the waste transfer station in Bacup, but the preferred solution was use of the Suez waste transfer facility at Darwen.  He indicated that he was working hard to secure this option.

In respect of Minute 46 – Accrington Stanley FC, Councillor David Heap expressed the view that there had been no progress in recent weeks, despite councillors reporting that meetings were taking place with the club.  The issues had been on-going for over 12 months and residents were frustrated by the apparent lack of progress.  He called for the Leader of the Council to resign over this matter.

The Leader responded that the above comments were disingenuous and inappropriate.  The Council leadership’s first meeting with the club’s representatives had taken place 3 months ago and there had been much progress since then.  It was hoped that there would be some positive news within the next few weeks.  Councillor Dad indicated that a complex situation was not being helped by comments being circulated which were untrue.  He retorted that the councillor concerned might consider his own resignation.

A lengthy debate then ensued.

Councillors Steven Smithson and Zak Khan raised concerns about the following:

• Limited updates as to progress;
• The closure of the club’s leisure venue and football academy;
• The impact on businesses such as ASFC of Government policies on employer’s national insurance contributions and the national minimum wage; and
• An apparent unwillingness by the Council to listen to suggestions proposed by the Opposition to provide financial support to the club.

Councillors Andrew Clegg, Clare Pritchard, Paul Cox, Vanessa Alexander, Melissa Fisher, Stewart Eaves and Dave Parkins raised the following issues in response:

• A lack of compliance by the club with both planning and licensing rules;
• The club needing to take responsibility for their actions and needing to propose solutions to the situation;
• The minimal impact of national business policies on the club’s situation;
• A pattern of lack of engagement by the club with the Council, typified by a history of the club submitting retrospective planning applications;
• The academy closure being due to a business decision by the club, unrelated to the entertainment venue issues;
• Noise emissions from Coley’s Bar and the 1968 Lounge impacting negatively on residents’ lives for two years;
• Applauding a more collaborative approach by the club’s new Chief Executive Officer, Warren Eastham, with the Council and the local community;
• Noting the value added to the Borough by the club and its Community Trust;
• Thanking the Environmental Health Team for their work to record the evidence of noise breaches for consideration by the appropriate regulatory body; and
• Highlighting the Council’s restraint in not prosecuting the club for any regulatory breaches, preferring instead to work with them and others to find solutions.

Councillor Dad thanked all for their contributions to this debate.  He commented that the Opposition proposal to loan money to the club to make the necessary improvements to the roof sound insulation was not viable, as the Council could not justify using public money for this purpose.  When the Council learned that the academy was at risk it had offered financial support from within funds available for this type of activity, however, the club had not accepted the money, as continuation of the academy did not meet its business model.  The Council remained keen to discuss a way forward with the club.

With regard to Minute 49 – Appointment of Cabinet Committees, etc, Councillor Steven Smithson noted that the Cabinet Waste and Recycling Group had been re-established for 2025/26 and was pleased to have been appointed to serve on this body.  The group had not met in 2024/25.  He asked if this group would meet in the current year.   Councillor Stewart Eaves, Portfolio Holder for Environmental Services, undertook to revive this working group.

In respect of Minutes 50 and 51 – Huncoat Garden Village, Councillor Steven Smithson commented that he had been shocked to hear from the Portfolio Holder at the meeting that she had not read one of the reports and sought her assurance that all future reports would be read.  Councillor Melissa Fisher, Deputy Leader and Portfolio Holder for Culture, Heritage and Sport, responded that her recollection of the meeting was entirely different and that she had never made a statement to that effect.  Her actual comments about the detail of the report had been taken out of context.  Councillors Pritchard, Khan and Dad all commented on the demands upon members’ time when trying to digest information contained in lengthy reports.

In connection with Minute 48 – Portfolio Responsibilities 2025/26, the Leader of the Council reported that he was the relevant Portfolio Holder for asset management and would report back on any issues arising from the Oswaldtwistle Civic Theatre Working Group.

In connection with Minute 52 – Draft Culture and Heritage Strategy, Councillor Judith Addison asked about the Culture and Heritage Investment Panel (CHIP), who served on this body and what was its remit.  Councillor Dad undertook to request Kirsten Burnett, Head of Policy and Organisational Development, to send the information to Councillor Addison.

Regarding Minute 57 – Coach Road Solar Meadow Project, she asked why William Blyth Ltd had been selected to purchase the electricity generated from the site.  The original proposal had envisaged the electricity being sold to CVMU and/or to Hyndburn Sports Centre.  Councillor Dad suggested that this question should be directed to Prospects Community Energy Limited, who were the recipient of a grant from the Council to support this project.

With regard to Minute 46 – Accrington Neighbourhoods Board, Councillor Zak Khan, Leader of the Opposition, reminded members that he had asked for further information about the process for the appointment of the Chair of the Board.  No information had yet been received.  Councillor Dad reiterated that the appointment process had been transparent and the MP and officers had followed a clear selection process.  The person selected was the most suitable candidate for the role.  He was unclear about what further information was required.

In connection with Minute 54 – Provisional Financial Outturn Position, Councillor Zak Khan, Leader of the Opposition, reminded members that he had asked about utilising reserves for new projects and had been informed that the Cabinet was looking at its priorities.  He expressed a wish for the Opposition to contribute some suggestions to the proposed list of projects.  Councillor Dad responded that there was a long list of projects to be considered for the underspends budget.  The projects ultimately selected would serve the residents of Hyndburn and would not be politically motivated.

Resolved                                    -    That the Minutes be received and noted.