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.

The Mayor confirmed that all motions submitted had received the minimum number of signatories required (or higher).  He then called upon the mover of the first motion to speak.

 

Given that the time was now 8:55pm and there were four motions to debate, Councillor Smithson asked if the Mayor now wished to seek the consent of the meeting that the proceedings continue beyond 10:00pm, under Council Procedure Rule A7.  The Mayor considered that it would be premature to determine that question at this stage.

 

The meeting was then adjourned for 5 minutes to allow members to take short break.

 

1)         Live streaming of Meetings

 

The following motion was proposed by Councillor David Heap and seconded by Councillor Zak Khan, with support from signatory Councillors Steven Smithson, in accordance with Council Procedure Rule A9:

 

“This Council requests that the Cabinet consider making arrangements for all council meetings to be live streamed online for public viewing, this includes full council, cabinet and scrutiny meetings.”

 

Councillors Mohammed Younis, Steven Smithson, Zak Khan spoke in favour of the motion on the grounds of transparency.  Councillor Kimberley Whitehead, Andy Gilbert and Munsif Dad spoke against the proposals, noting that livestreaming was desirable, but that the Leader’s Policy Development Board had considered this on several occasions and had concluded that the set up costs (in the region of £110k) could not be justified; there were other financial pressures on the Council; local government reorganisation might reduce the usage of the Council Chamber; and, in any event, members of the public regularly posted video recordings of the meetings on social media.

 

Councillor Heap summed up by querying the detailed costs within the quote and stating that the public wanted to be able to view meetings on line.

 

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule A6.5, six councillors present called for a recorded vote, the outcome of which was as follows.

 

For (10)

 

Councillors Judith Addison, Josh Allen (Mayor), Loraine Cox, Peter Edwards, David Heap, Zak Khan, Joyce Plummer, Steven Smithson,Tina Walker and Mohammed Younis.

 

Against (18)

 

Councillors Vanessa Alexander, Heather Anderson, Noordad Aziz, Scott Brerton, Andrew Clegg, Jodi Clements, Paul Cox, Munsif Dad BEM JP, Bernard Dawson MBE, Stewart Eaves,Melissa Fisher, Andy Gilbert, Clare McKenna, Dave Parkins, Clare Pritchard, Ethan Rawcliffe, Kimberley Whitehead and Clare Yates

 

Abstain (0)

 

Nil

 

Accordingly, the MOTION was LOST.

 

2)         Urgent Review of the Article 4 Direction Across Hyndburn

 

The following motion was proposed by Councillor Steven Smithson and seconded by Councillor David Heap, with support from signatories Councillors Loraine Cox and Zak Khan, in accordance with Council Procedure Rule A9:

 

“This Council calls on the Cabinet to urgently review its decision regarding the implementation of the Article 4 Direction for Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs) across Hyndburn, and to provide a clear, transparent explanation as to why seven wards have been excluded from this policy.”

 

The following AMENDMENT was moved by Councillor Munsif Dad and seconded by Councillor Melissa Fisher:

 

The substitution of the following wording for the whole of the original Motion:

 

“This Council gives thanks for the advice and hard work of planning staff at Hyndburn Borough Council in bringing in the first stage of the Article 4 Direction across a range of wards in Hyndburn.

 

This Council calls on the Cabinet to resolve to continue working towards the consideration of a full Article 4 across the Borough of Hyndburn which, if fully evidenced, is implemented in a timely and sustainable manner.”

 

With the agreement of the meeting, the Mayor approved a brief adjournment to allow time for Members to consider the amendment.

 

The meeting then reconvened.

 

Councillor Khan indicated that the Opposition group was not willing to adopt this wording in place of their original motion.  Accordingly, members proceeded to debate the amendment.

 

Councillor Dad introduced the amendment and explained that the controlling group had been pleased to introduce the Article 4 Direction.  The proposal had been adopted last December, consultation had taken place in March 2025, but the policy could not then be implemented for a period of twelve months.  The question about extending Article 4 was asked at the original Cabinet meeting at which Councillor Smithson was present, and an explanation had been provided than that sufficient evidence could only be identified for nine of the Council’s sixteen wards.  The advice, at that time, was to wait for at least six months before undertaking a review of whether this could be rolled out to the other wards.  In the meantime, the controlling group would be happy to work with the Opposition in response to new applications for HMOs.  He noted that other Lancashire Boroughs were adopting similar Article 4 measures.

 

Councillors Clare Pritchard and Melissa Fisher spoke in favour of the amendment and reported that there remained a need for HMOs for young/single people on low income and that it should not be assumed that all occupants would have chaotic lifestyles.  Ensuring good management of HMOs by responsible landlords was essential.  Furthermore, an Article 4 Direction would not stop all HMO applications from being approved, as each would have to be considered on its own merits.

 

The following members spoke against the amendment.  Councillor Zak Khan acknowledged the above points, accepting the need for some HMOs.  However, he was of the view that residents wanted more control over their establishment and he considered that the original assessment of the evidence available in support of a Borough wide Article 4 Direction was flawed.  Hence, an immediate review of this evidence base was being requested.  Councillor Judith Addison added that speculators often took advantage of the cheaper property prices in the region to establish HMOs and children’s care homes.  Councillor Smithson replied to the amendment, indicating the he was not against this on a matter of party political principle, but because he believed that residents wanted an urgent review of the existing arrangements to enable a borough-wide Article 4 Direction to be implemented.

 

The Mayor noted that the time was now 9:50pm and invited members to agree to extend the terminal hour of the meeting to 10:30pm, in accordance with Council Procedure Rule A7.  This was agreed.

 

The AMENDMENTwas then put to the VOTE.

 

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 16.5, six members called for a recorded vote on the amendment, the outcome of which was as follows:

 

For (16)

 

Councillors Vanessa Alexander, Heather Anderson, Noordad Aziz, Scott Brerton, Andrew Clegg, Jodi Clements, Paul Cox, Munsif Dad BEM JP, Bernard Dawson MBE, Stewart Eaves, Melissa Fisher, Andy Gilbert, Clare McKenna, Ethan Rawcliffe, Kimberley Whitehead and Clare Yates

 

Against (9)

 

Councillors Judith Addison, Josh Allen (Mayor), Loraine Cox, Peter Edwards, David Heap, Zak Khan, Joyce Plummer, Steven Smithson and Tina Walker.

 

Abstain (0)

 

Nil

 

Accordingly, the AMENDMENT was CARRIED.

 

There was no debate on the substantive motion, which was then put to the voteimmediately.

 

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 16.5, six members called for a recorded vote on the substantive motion, the outcome of which was as follows:

 

For (16)

 

Councillors Vanessa Alexander, Heather Anderson, Noordad Aziz, Scott Brerton, Andrew Clegg, Jodi Clements, Paul Cox, Munsif Dad BEM JP, Bernard Dawson MBE, Stewart Eaves, Melissa Fisher, Andy Gilbert, Clare McKenna, Ethan Rawcliffe, Kimberley Whitehead and Clare Yates

 

Against (9)

 

Councillors Judith Addison, Josh Allen (Mayor), Loraine Cox, Peter Edwards, David Heap, Zak Khan, Joyce Plummer, Steven Smithson and Tina Walker.

 

Abstain (0)

 

Nil

 

Resolved                                 (1)   This Council gives thanks for the advice and hard work of planning staff at Hyndburn Borough Council in bringing in the first stage of the Article 4 Direction across a range of wards in Hyndburn.

 

(2)   This Council calls on the Cabinet to resolve to continue working towards the consideration of a full Article 4 across the Borough of Hyndburn which, if fully evidenced, is implemented in a timely and sustainable manner.

 

3)         Support for Local Businesses amid Financial Pressures

 

The following motion was proposed by Councillor Zak Khan and seconded by Councillor Steven Smithson, with support from signatory Councillor David Heap, in accordance with Council Procedure Rule A9:

 

“This Council recognises the significant financial challenges currently facing local businesses across Hyndburn.  The recent increase in taxes, predominately National Insurance (NI) contributions, has placed additional strain on employers, while high business rates - particularly within the hospitality and retail sector - are contributing to a worrying rise in business closures.

 

Our local businesses are vital economic drivers.  They create employment opportunities, support local supply chains, and help build a thriving community where families can live, work, and prosper.  It is a priority for this Council to ensure these businesses are supported during this difficult period.

 

This Council:

 

1. Requests that the Cabinet develops an urgent report outlining practical and targeted measures to support local businesses, tailored to individual sectors. This may include steps to promote and increase uptake of existing business rate relief schemes.

 

2. Requests that the Cabinet reviews the importance of establishing an Economic and Regeneration Fund – as proposed during the February 2025 budget-setting process – and the Cabinet revisit the viability and implementation of such a fund to support long-term business recovery and growth.

 

3. Requests the Leader of the Council & Leader of the Opposition write a joint cross-party letter to Sarah Smith MP; urging her to recognise that the country cannot tax its way to grow and to stand up for Hyndburn businesses by vocally opposing any new tax rises.

 

Through these actions, the Council aims to provide meaningful support to the businesses that form the backbone of Hyndburn’s economy and long-term transformation, before it is too late for more of our local hard-working business owners.”

 

Councillor Khan, highlighted the current financial pressures on businesses and the cost to the nation of out-of-work benefits.  Councillor Smithson also spoke in favour of the motion and highlighted a particular restaurant business in his ward which had recently ceased trading.  Councillors Andrew Clegg, Scott Brerton and Munsif Dad spoke against the motion, citing:

 

• the need for big corporations to support the economy;
• the influence on business of factors outside of the control of the Council and Government;
• the work that the Council was already doing to support local businesses;
• a willingness to work cross-party on any initiatives; and
• the existence of regular meetings and dialogue between the Leader of the Council and the local MP, including discussions about businesses.

 

Councillor Khan summed up by expressing disappointment that it appeared that the motion would not be supported by the controlling group.

 

On being put to the VOTE, the motion was LOST.

 

4.         Fair Funding Review

 

The following motion was proposed by Councillor Zak Khan and seconded by Councillor Joyce Plummer, with written support from signatory Councillor Danny Cassidy (who was no longer present), in accordance with Council Procedure Rule A9:

 

“The Cabinet Report of 10 September 2025 detailing an update on the Fair Funding Review notes:

 

"Hyndburn could experience a substantial reduction in funding under the revised methodology.  Hyndburn has been identified as one of the 49 most adversely affected authorities, with projected funding levels falling well below the baseline set out in the government’s consultation."

 

This Council:

 

Requests the Leader of the Council, along with Leaders of the Opposition parties, write a joint cross-party letter on behalf and signed by all Councillors, to Sarah Smith MP, the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for MHCLG - to urge them to conduct an urgent review and reverse Hyndburn's inclusion on the list of adversely affected authorities - in order to provide certainty to the residents in Hyndburn that they will not be disproportionately affected at a time of significant need across the Borough.”

 

Councillor Khan recognised the need to avoid creating anxiety amongst the public about the potential outcome of the Fair Funding Review, but he highlighted the statement above contained within the recent Cabinet report.  He hoped that a cross-party letter to the MP and relevant Government ministers would help to add weight to the previous consultation response.  The predicted shortfall in funding was likely to be over £1m across all three scenarios outlined in the Medium Term Financial Strategy.  Councillor Plummer also spoke in favour of the motion and commented that a funding reduction of 7% - 10% could have significant implications for the Council.

 

Councillor Dad responded he did not support the motion and that the recommendations of the Review were only proposals at this stage.  The Finance Team had answered some 46 questions on the impact of the proposals as part of the consultation.  The Leader and MP had also written separately to Minister.  A reply provided by the Minister had indicated that the Department were still considering the consultation responses.  The outcome should be known in November 2025, following which the political groups could work together, if there remained any issues to resolve.  However, the controlling group remained optimistic about the position and, in any event, the Council had good financial management arrangements in place.  He thanked the Finance Team for their hard work.

 

Councillors Alexander and Whitehead spoke against the motion, noting that work was on-going in preparation for various financial scenarios and reminding councillors that exaggerating any potential negative impacts could be detrimental to staff morale.

 

Councillor Khan summarised by noting that he had only been made aware of the outcome of the Fair Funding Review as a result of the LGA Corporate Peer Challenge.  He expressed disappointment that the situation had not been shared with him earlier.

 

On being put to the VOTE, the motion was LOST.