Agenda, decisions and minutes

Decision: That the minutes of the Executive Cabinet meeting held on 14 February 2019 be confirmed as a correct record for signature by the Executive Leader.

Members are reminded of their responsibility to declare any pecuniary interest in respect of matters contained in this agenda.

If you have a pecuniary interest you must withdraw from the meeting. Normally you should leave the room before the business starts to be discussed. You do, however, have the same right to speak as a member of the public and may remain in the room to enable you to exercise that right and then leave immediately. In either case you must not seek to improperly influence a decision on the matter.

There were no declarations of interests.

Members of the public who have requested the opportunity to ask a question(s) on an item(s) on the agenda will have three minutes to put their question(s) to the respective Executive Member(s).  Each member of the public will be allowed to ask one short supplementary question. 

There was one public question received from Mr Mohsin Patel in relation to a report later in the agenda, Allocation of Community Infrastructure Levy Funds.

“Although the committee is asked to approve funding of £572,250 for the purchase of St. Johns Club, has consideration been given by the council for the overall scheme capital costs? Information available on Chorley and South Ribble CCG website states that the anticipated capital build cost for the medical centre is £3.45 million. Thus a total outlay required by Chorley Council will be close to £4m.

Should the council not be seeking approval for the total scheme costs before they commit to buying some land?”

Councillor Peter Wilson, Executive Member (Resources), responded that the report on today’s agenda was just seeking approval for the purchase of the site, not the entire project. He confirmed that consideration had been given to the forward plans but that details (including costings) were yet to be determined and would be presented to Council for decision when available. Gary Hall, Chief Executive, advised that discussions were being held with a number of stakeholders to consider the various options and challenges for the site but confirmed that no final scheme had been identified.

To consider and receive the report of the Director (Business, Development and Growth).

To approve the allocation of £572,250 capital infrastructure monies to the St John’s Health Centre project for spend in 2019/20.

Councillor Peter Wilson, Executive Member (Resources), presented the report of the Director (Business, Development and Growth) which seeks approval for the allocation of Strategic CIL monies to purchase the St Johns Club, 239 Preston Road, Clayton-Le-Woods to support the delivery of the Clayton-Le-Woods General Practice surgery which is on the Regulation 123 List.

Members discussed the report, noting that there was no formal proposal for the project currently, and therefore there were no details available regarding timescales or facilities. Councillor Wilson advised that although discussions had been held with several stakeholders about the options available for developing the site, these were yet to be explored in detail and no formal proposals were available.

With regards to posts on social media, Councillor Wilson explained there was any formal partnership with any individual stakeholders and reiterated that no detailed plans or proposals were in place. It was suggested any alleged misinformation being circulated by councillors or parish councillors should be reported to the Monitoring Officer for investigation as a potential Standards matter. In response to a subsequent question, the Chief Executive advised that moving forwards the planning process would include usage of the existing community centre space.

Decision:

To approve the allocation of £572,250 capital infrastructure monies to the St John’s Health Centre project for spend in 2019/20.

Reasons for Recommendation(s):

To allocate the CIL Infrastructure Fund in the way it is intended and ensure the methodology of how it is allocated is transparent.

Alternative Options Considered and Rejected:

None.

To consider and receive the report of the Chief Executive.

1.    That the contents of this performance report are noted.

2.    That the proposed refreshed Joint Procurement Strategy included at Appendix 3 of the report is adopted.

Councillor Peter Wilson, Executive Member (Resources), presented the report of the Chief Executive which sets out the performance achieved against the 2015 - 2018 Chorley Borough and South Ribble Borough Councils Joint Procurement Strategy (JPS) and includes recommendations for a new refreshed 3-year JPS commencing 1 April 2019. Members noted that the Strategy had been presented to the Shared Services Joint Committee in February, who had approved it being taken forward at both authorities.

Decision:

1.    That the contents of this performance report are noted.

2.    That the proposed refreshed Joint Procurement Strategy included at Appendix 3 of the report is adopted.

Reasons for Recommendation(s):

To set out procurement priorities and provide a clear framework, plan and direction on how to achieve these.

Alternative Options Considered and Rejected:

To not renew the Joint Procurement Strategy. This would mean that the Council would not have clearly defined procurement priorities and would not have a clear framework, plan and direction on how to achieve these.

To consider and receive the report of the Director (Customer and Digital).

Approve the proposed changes to the Local Enforcement Plan.

Councillor Paul Walmsley, Executive Member (Public Protection), presented the report of the Director (Customer and Digital) which seeks approval for changes to the Council’s Local Enforcement Plan. It was noted that this plan would provide a more efficient and customer focused service and is based on best practice examples across the country.

Decision:

Approve the proposed changes to the Local Enforcement Plan.

Reasons for Recommendation(s):

To align the Council’s Local Enforcement Plan with other best practice examples across the Country whilst ensuring it meets the specific needs of the local area.

Alternative Options Considered and Rejected:

Continuing with the existing plan which is not fit for purpose, for the reasons identified within the report.

To consider and receive the report of the Director (Early Intervention and Support).

1.    It is recommended that the neighbourhood priorities proposed within each neighbourhood management meeting are agreed.

2.    It is recommended that when scoping out the detail and financial resources required for each priority, financial or in-kind contributions are sought from partners within the neighbourhood including parish councils, Lancashire County Council, voluntary sector and other stakeholders.

3.    Where a priority is subsequently scoped out as requiring increased financial resources, consideration will be made in consultation with the Executive Member (Early Intervention) for this neighbourhood priority to be carried out at additional cost beyond £2,000, phased, or developed further as an individual corporate project.

Councillor Bev Murray, Executive Member (Early Intervention), presented the report of the Director (Early Intervention and Support) which presents the proposed neighbourhood priorities that have been agreed within each neighbourhood management group. Members discussed the future of Neighbourhood Area Meetings in light of the upcoming boundary changes and noted that, although a number of projects were still small-scale, the wider contextual information given in these meetings was starting to inform larger projects, attracting match-funding and partnership working.

Decision:

1.    It is recommended that the neighbourhood priorities proposed within each neighbourhood management meeting are agreed.

2.    It is recommended that when scoping out the detail and financial resources required for each priority, financial or in-kind contributions are sought from partners within the neighbourhood including parish councils, Lancashire County Council, voluntary sector and other stakeholders.

3.    Where a priority is subsequently scoped out as requiring increased financial resources, consideration will be made in consultation with the Executive Member (Early Intervention) for this neighbourhood priority to be carried out at additional cost beyond £2,000, phased, or developed further as an individual corporate project.

Reasons for Recommendation(s):

Neighbourhood working and associated projects is a key priority within the council’s corporate strategy and encourages the improvement of environmental, health, and social features within the eight neighbourhoods of Chorley.

Alternative Options Considered and Rejected:

To not support the continuation and development of neighbourhood priorities across the borough and not make the £50,000 funding available.

To consider the exclusion of the press and public for the following items of business on the ground that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972.

By Virtue of Paragraph 3: Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information)

Condition:

Information is not exempt if it is required to be registered under-

The Companies Act 1985

The Friendly Societies Act 1974

The Friendly Societies Act 1992

The Industrial and Provident Societies Acts 1965 to 1978

The Building Societies Act 1986 (recorded in the public file of any building society, within the meaning of the Act)

The Charities Act 1993

Information is exempt to the extent that, in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.

Information is not exempt if it relates to proposed development for which the local planning authority may grant itself planning permission pursuant to Regulation 3 of the Town & Country Planning General Regulations 1992(a).

To exclude the public and press.

Decision: To exclude the press and public for the following items of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972.

To consider and receive the report of the Director (Business, Development and Growth).

1.    To note the project update.

2.    To allocate the sum of £53,962 for the delivery of the project from s106 and CIL receipts.

3.    To agree to the improvement works proposed (comprising a proposed car park / revised access and pitch drainage / grading), to authorise the submission of a planning application and to further authorise the procurement of a competent contractor or contractors to deliver the work.

4.    To approve that the contract awards be delegated to the Executive Member for Economic Development and Public Service Reform.

Councillor Alistair Bradley, Executive Member (Economic Development and Public Service Reform), presented the confidential report of the Director (Business, Development and Growth) which provides an update on the Kem Mill Lane / Whittle-le-Woods Football Club playing field improvement project, seeks authorisation to allocate the project budget, submit a planning application and procure a competent contractor or contractors to deliver the works.

Decision:

1.    To note the project update.

2.    To allocate the sum of £53,962 for the delivery of the project from s106 and CIL receipts.

3.    To agree to the improvement works proposed (comprising a proposed car park / revised access and pitch drainage / grading), to authorise the submission of a planning application and to further authorise the procurement of a competent contractor or contractors to deliver the work.

4.    To approve that the contract awards be delegated to the Executive Member for Economic Development and Public Service Reform.

Reasons for Recommendation(s):

1.    The sum of £53,962 needs to be spent or there is a risk of having to repay the S106 / commuted sum contributions to the developers.

2.    The improvement to Whittle-le-Woods football club pitch drainage is identified in the Chorley Playing Pitch Strategy 2014-2019. The playing surface would benefit from the proposed pitch improvement works to regularise the pitch surface gradients and decrease the number of cancelled matches during inclement weather.

3.    The playing pitch is in need of additional car parking facilities as on match days players and spectators are parking along Kem Mill Lane resulting in inconvenience to local residents. A number of new properties have also been built, further along Kem Mill Lane which is exacerbating the parking problem on match days.

Alternative Options Considered and Rejected:

To return the S106 to the developer and leave the playing pitch and its facilities as existing.

To consider and receive the report of the Director (Early Intervention and Support).

1.    That the Executive Cabinet approve the commencement of a procurement exercise for the management of the indoor leisure contract, using Competitive Procurement with Negotiation.

2.    That delegated authority be given to the Executive Member (Resources) to approve the strategy for procurement when it is developed.

Councillor Bev Murray, Executive Member (Early Intervention), presented the confidential report of the Director (Early Intervention and Support) which presents the work undertaken to review options for the management of the council’s leisure centres, and seeks approval for commencing a procurement exercise.

Decision:

1.    That the Executive Cabinet approve the commencement of a procurement exercise for the management of the indoor leisure contract, using Competitive Procurement with Negotiation.

2.    That delegated authority be given to the Executive Member (Resources) to approve the strategy for procurement when it is developed.

Reasons for Recommendation(s):

The work undertaken indicates that the procurement exercise is the most likely to deliver best value for the council.

Alternative Options Considered and Rejected:

To extend the current contract, which was rejected on the basis that this would not provide the opportunity to test the market and secure best value.