Decision: That the minutes of the Executive Cabinet meeting held on 30 July 2020 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 interest.

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 were no public questions.

To consider and receive the report of the Director of Commercial Services.

1.         To agree to the proposed names for the development and the process for choosing a name, which involves an opportunity for residents to vote on their preferred name.

2.         To agree the draft allocations policy for consultation with the bodies identified at Paragraph 27.

3.         To delegate to the Executive Member for Homes and Housing Authority to amend the policy following the consultation responses being considered.

4.         To delegate to the Executive Member for Homes and Housing authority to approve and adopt the allocations policy, in current or amended form.

5.         To delegate the signing of the S185 agreement (sewer abandonment), S247 agreement (stopping up order of Silverdale Road) and the S278 (road works) agreement to the Director of Commercial Services.

6.         To delegate the signing of the getting building funding agreement to Executive Member (Resources).

Mark Lester, Director of Commercial Services, presented his report which presents the list of shortlisted options for the name for the Tatton development and the process for how the name will be chosen.  The report also presents the draft eligibility criteria for the extra care element of the scheme.

The Tatton development, including the extra care apartments is due to commence construction in January 2021, with completion by March 2022.  To allow the council to effectively promote the development there is a need to agree a name for the development and agree to an allocation policy to allocate the apartments in a fair and transparent way.

Due to the nature of the accommodation and the provision of the extra care element, it is necessary to incorporate the view of LCC and agree a series of priorities in order to comply with Homes England grant conditions.

Members supported the proposals within the report, particularly the discretion within the allocations policy.  It was noted that Lancashire County Council are the commissioning body but have not made a capital contribution to the development. 

Decision

1.         To agree to the proposed names for the development and the process for choosing a name, which involves an opportunity for residents to vote on their preferred name.

2.         To agree the draft allocations policy for consultation with the bodies identified at Paragraph 27.

3.         To delegate to the Executive Member for Homes and Housing authority to amend the policy following the consultation responses being considered.

4.         To delegate to the Executive Member for Homes and Housing authority to approve and adopt the allocations policy, in current or amended form.

5.         To delegate the signing of the S185 agreement (sewer abandonment), S247 agreement (stopping up order of Silverdale Road) and the S278 (road works) agreement to the Director of Commercial Services.

6.         To delegate the signing of the getting building funding agreement to Executive Member (Resources).

Reasons for recommendation(s):

1.         The naming of the scheme allows the local residents to take some ownership of the proposed development.

2.         The allocations policy is required to ensure that the accommodation within the Tatton development is allocated in a fair and transparent manner.

Alternative options considered and rejected:

1.         Allow the name of the scheme to be chosen by Members, this was rejected as this would not offer the opportunity for residents to take some ownership of the scheme.

2.         To use the existing select move allocations policy to allocate the apartments and to not develop a separate allocations policy. This was rejected as the nature of the Tatton development scheme means that different needs and issues need to be taken into consideration in prioritising the accommodation. The proposed allocation policy also aligns with the allocations policy for Primrose Gardens.

To consider and receive the report of the Deputy Chief Executive.

To approve the RP Partnership Framework for consultation.

Katherine Greenwood, Planning Policy and Housing Officer, presented the report of the Deputy Chief Executive which seeks approval to consult on the Registered Provider (RP) Partnership Framework.

A RP Partnership Framework is a strategic partnership between a Council and the RPs who wish to work within their boundaries.  It sets out an agreed framework for the delivery of affordable homes secured through s106 agreements and can provide Councils with direct control of the allocation of these affordable units.

It will therefore give the Council opportunity to control which RPs can secure s106 units in the borough.  The Council is a RP so will also be able to apply to be on the Framework and have the opportunity to secure some of these units.

It is proposed that it will be implemented in April 2021 following consultation and selection of partners.

Members supported the proposal. 

Decision:

To approve the RP Partnership Framework for consultation.

Reasons for recommendation(s):

To enable the Council to have direct control of the allocation of affordable units secured through s106 agreements.

Alternative options considered and rejected:

None.

To receive and consider the report of the Chief Finance Officer.

1.         To note the full year forecast position for the 2020/21 revenue budget and capital investment programme.

2.         To note the forecast position on the Council's reserves.

3.         To note the capital programme to be delivered in 2020/21 to 2022/23

Councillor Peter Wilson, Executive Member for Resources, presented the report of the Chief Finance Officer which sets out the provisional revenue and capital outturn figures for the Council as compared against the budgets and efficiency savings targets set for the financial year 2020/21.

The council is in a positive position financially, but due to Covid-19, the impact on council tax collection and changes to the business rate retention scheme some difficult decisions may have to be taken in the future.  Money had been agreed and set aside to fund set up costs in the council taking over the running of its leisure centres.

Members noted that funding for building maintenance has been reprofiled as work has been delayed due to Covid-19.  The Digital Office Park is now back open and generating income from renting office space and the meeting rooms.  Closer working with partners and charities to deliver some services is under review. 

Decision:

1.         To note the full year forecast position for the 2020/21 revenue budget and capital investment programme.

2.         To note the forecast position on the Council's reserves.

3.         To note the capital programme to be delivered in 2020/21 to 2022/23

Reasons for recommendation(s):

To ensure the Council’s budgetary targets are achieved.

Alternative options considered and rejected:

None.

To receive and consider the report of the Deputy Chief Executive.

To approve the Corporate Performance Framework as a shared policy document.

Vicky Willett, Shared Service Lead - Transformation and Partnerships, presented the report of the Deputy Chief Executive which presents the revised Corporate Performance Framework for approval.

A review of the Corporate Performance Framework has been undertaken. Members considered an overview of the revised performance management policy and the proposed approach to its implementation.

Decision:

To approve the Corporate Performance Framework as a shared policy document.

Reasons for recommendation(s):

To ensure that we have up-to-date and robust approach to performance management that can consistently and effectively respond to the needs of each authority across shared services.  Effective performance management is vital for improving outcomes for our communities as it provides a key mechanism for continuous service improvement and excellence.

Alternative options considered and rejected:

The alternative of not adopting the revised Corporate Performance Framework has been considered.  This would maintain current inconsistencies and limit the effective management of performance for both Councils.

To receive and consider the report of the Deputy Chief Executive. 

1.         To approve the use of the UK Leisure Procurement Framework to conduct development projects at Leisure centres.

2.         To approve that the decision for the scope of the works to be conducted be delegated to the Executive Member for Early Intervention and approved via the executive member decision process.

Councillor Beverly Murray, Executive Member for Early Intervention, presented the report of the Deputy Chief Executive which seeks approval to use an existing UK Leisure Framework (Access Agreement) to deliver any capital development projects that may need to be conducted imminently at Leisure centres.  It also seeks approval for the scope of development projects to be conducted to be delegated to the Executive Member for Early Intervention.

Following the report to General Purposes Committee in September 2020 the Council agreed to bring the management of the Leisure facilities in-house whilst the longer-term options are considered.

The preferred bidder had intended to use Alliance Leisure to develop and deliver capital development projects across the sites, utilising their experience and knowledge of leisure facilities development.

Alliance Leisure have developed a framework which has been approved to be used by Local Authorities and is compliant with OJEU regulations but this framework expires in 2021.

Members supported this and noted that improvements have already been made to the car park at All Seasons. 

Decision:

1.         To approve the use of the UK Leisure Procurement Framework to conduct development projects at Leisure centres.

2.         To approve that the decision for the scope of the works to be conducted be delegated to the Executive Member for Early Intervention and approved via the executive member decision process.

Reasons for recommendation(s):

Use of the framework will allow any works to the centres to be deployed in effective timescale whilst ensuring the process is compliant with OJEU procurement regulations.

Alternative options considered and rejected:

1.         Undertake the delivery of the projects in-house and commence a separate procurement process.  This was rejected as we do not have the expertise to deliver such projects and it would take a considerable amount of time to conduct the procurement exercise for a variety of services and suppliers.

2.         The ability to use the framework will expire in January 2021 therefore to delay submitting our intention to use the framework would mean that we would not be able to make use of this existing framework if we needed to commit to work before January 2021.

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 Paragraphs 1, 3 and 4 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972.

By Virtue of Paragraph 1: Information relating to any individual.

Condition:

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).

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).

By Virtue of Paragraph 4: Information relating to any consultations or negotiations, or contemplated consultations or negotiations, in connection with any labour relations matter arising between the authority or a Minister of the Crown and employees of, or office holders under the authority.

Condition:

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 Paragraphs 1, 3 and 4 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972.

To receive and consider the report of the Director of Commercial Services. 

1.         To conclude final negotiations with BAES and establish a commercial settlement.

2.         To continue and conclude dialogue as regards draft Heads of Terms with BAES and a draft Lease agreement with Network Rail.

3.         To progress dialogue with GA Petfoods to establish an agreement around access, use and financial contribution if practical / feasible.

4.         To progress with a CIL funding application.

5.         To commence pre-app discussions with planners to establish implications and requirements.

6.         To continue dialogue with LCC regarding the nature of the cycleway and Alker Lane, including the potential site exit onto Euxton Lane.

7.         To engage with the Alker Lane design team to progress initial design work regarding the cycle path and the integration of Alker Lane into the wider development.

8.         To delegate the final agreements with BAES, Network Rail and GA Petfoods to the Executive Member (Resources).

9.         To delegate the signing of the ‘getting building’ find agreement to the Executive Member (Resources).

10.      To authorise the Director of Governance to complete all necessary legal documents to implement the agreements approved by the Executive Member (Resources).

Mark Lester, Director of Commercial Services, presented his confidential report which sets out the current position and proposals relating to this project. 

Members supported the proposals within the report, particularly with regards to the nature reserve. 

Decision:

1.         To conclude final negotiations with BAES and establish a commercial settlement.

2.         To continue and conclude dialogue as regards draft Heads of Terms with BAES and a draft Lease agreement with Network Rail.

3.         To progress dialogue with GA Petfoods to establish an agreement around access, use and financial contribution if practical / feasible.

4.         To progress with a CIL funding application.

5.         To commence pre-app discussions with planners to establish implications and requirements.

6.         To continue dialogue with LCC regarding the nature of the cycleway and Alker Lane, including the potential site exit onto Euxton Lane.

7.         To engage with the Alker Lane design team to progress initial design work regarding the cycle path and the integration of Alker Lane into the wider development.

8.         To delegate the final agreements with BAES, Network Rail and GA Petfoods to the Executive Member (Resources).

9.         To delegate the signing of the ‘getting building’ fuind agreement to the Executive Member (Resources).

10.       To authorise the Director of Governance to complete all necessary legal documents to implement the agreements approved by the Executive Member (Resources).

Reasons for recommendation(s):

There are a number of key benefits associated with CBC acquiring Alker Lane, Bridge and Nature Reserve and constructing the cycle path:

1.         Allow better connectivity by foot and bicycle between Buckshaw Avenue and Euxton Lane adding amenity value.

2.         Allow wider connectivity to Mossfield Nature Reserve.

3.         Improving links between Buckshaw Village and the Strawberry Fields Digital Hub and Alker Lane employment development.

4.         Working with local employer to allow transport connection between the existing and proposed employment sites.

5.         Nature reserve supporting wellbeing opportunities for local residents and encouraging wildlife diversity in the borough, offsetting loss of habitat as a result of developments elsewhere.

6.         Opportunities to increase tree planting in the borough and take advantage of funding opportunities in that respect.

7.         Potential to engage with the ‘Life for a Life Plan’, which provides opportunities for residents to pay for tree planting in remembrance.

8.         Opportunities to engage with Bio-Diversity companies who may wish to partner in the management of the reserve, to encourage habitat diversity.

9.         Increase the flexibility of the Alker Lane development by introducing a site exit onto Euxton Lane, which will provide better circulation to the scheme.  This will also introduce the possibility to introduce additional linear parking along the length of Alker Lane.

Alternative options considered and rejected:

1.         Not progressing the acquisition of Alker Lane: rejected as this would potentially result in the risk of a 3rd party acquiring the access and compromising the Alker Lane development.  Not progressing the acquisition would also remove the opportunity to generate additional parking to support the Alker Lane development and increase flexibility by introducing an additional exit onto Euxton Lane.

2.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 20.EC.219

To consider and receive the report of the Deputy Chief Executive.

1.         To approve the proposed restructures for the Transformation and Partnerships, Communications and Visitor Economy, and Governance services, as endorsed at Shared Services Joint Committee in September 2020.

2.         To approve the action plans for each of the service reviews, as endorsed by Shared Services Joint Committee in September 2020.

Chris Sinnott, Deputy Chief Executive, presented his confidential report which outlines the findings of the service reviews for phase 1 of shared services.  It also sets out the recommendations for each service.

Decision:

1.         To approve the proposed restructures for the Transformation and Partnerships, Communications and Visitor Economy, and Governance services, as endorsed at Shared Services Joint Committee in September 2020.

2.         To approve the action plans for each of the service reviews, as endorsed by Shared Services Joint Committee in September 2020.

Reasons for recommendation(s):

To progress the development of a single operating model for shared services.

Alternative options considered and rejected:

Not to review the services would restrict integration and limit effective joint working.