Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of the Council held on 8 September 2016.

The Minutes of the meeting of the Council held on 8 September 2016 were submitted for confirmation.  Amendments proposed by Councillor Fail to include Councillor Reeves in the list of apologies for absence and the name of Councillor R Duffy being inserted in place of Councillor Fail in the first line of the fourth paragraph of Minute 21 as the proposer of the amendment referred to were approved, with 22 members voting in favour and none against.

Councillor Fail also queried whether a vote had been taken at the meeting on 8 September to formally confirm the Minutes after the votes on the three amendments had been taken.  The Chief Executive said that he would arrange for the notes taken at the meeting on 8 September to be checked.

The Chief Executive also advised, following comments from several members about the content and format of minutes, that the purpose of this agenda item was simply to confirm the minutes of the previous meeting as a correct record. Paragraph 19.1 of the Council Procedure Rules in part 4 of the Constitution stated that “the only part of the minutes that can be discussed is their accuracy”.  He said that the legal requirement for Council minutes was that they should record the subject discussed, the information submitted for consideration and the decision taken.  He said that the minutes of most other councils were shorter than Wyre’s and many included no reference to comments made by individual councillors or the detail of discussions.

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the Council meeting held on 8 September 2016 be confirmed as a correct record, subject to the name of Councillor Reeves being included in the list of apologies for absence and the name of Councillor Fail being inserted in place of Councillor R Duffy in the first line of the fourth paragraph of Minute 21.

To receive any declarations of interest from any Member or Officer on any item on this agenda.

All Members are asked to submit any declarations in writing by 9.30am on Wednesday 19 October, 2016 if possible.

None.

To receive any announcements from the Mayor, Leader of the Council, Deputy Leader of the Council, Members of the Cabinet, a Chairman of a Committee or the Chief Executive.

1.    The Mayor announced that tickets for the Northern Festival of Remembrance at the Marine Hall on Wednesday 9 November 2016 were still on sale, with proceeds going to the Royal British Legion Poppy Appeal.  There would also be a raffle on the night, with proceeds going to the Mayor’s charities.

2.    The Mayor reminded members that the Mayoral Ball was to be held at the North Euston Hotel on Friday 24 March 2016.  He said that tickets would be on sale shortly priced at £32.50.

3.    The Mayor thanked the Deputy Mayor Councillor, Emma Anderton for arranging a dress down day at DWP Peel Park, which had raised in excess of £470 for the Mayor’s charities.

4.    Finally, the Mayor urged Members to purchase a tie in the Council’s corporate colours, being sold by Councillor Murphy to raise funds for the Mayor’s charities.

One public question has so far been received under Council Procedure Rule 9, as follows:

Question from Alderman Roger Brooks to the Planning and Economic Development Portfolio Holder (Cllr Murphy)

“There are presently eight undecided planning applications relating to land in the A6 corridor within the borough boundary totalling in excess of 800 new dwellings.  It is well known that there are significant issues of capacity along the A6 specifically affecting Junction 1 of the M55. The study commissioned to determine the limit of capacity has not been published.  Assuming that capacity is assessed at less than the 800 houses that are in the planning pipeline what yardstick will officers apply in deciding which application or applications will be recommended to the planning committee for approval?”

Any further questions or statements received by the specified deadline of noon on Friday, 14 October, 2016 will be published and circulated separately.

Alderman Roger Brooks asked the following question to the Planning and Economic Development Portfolio Holder (Councillor Murphy).

“There are presently eight undecided planning applications relating to land in the A6 corridor within the borough boundary totalling in excess of 800 new dwellings.  It is well known that there are significant issues of capacity along the A6 specifically affecting Junction 1 of the M55. The study commissioned to determine the limit of capacity has not been published.  Assuming that capacity is assessed at less than the 800 houses that are in the planning pipeline what yardstick will officers apply in deciding which application or applications will be recommended to the planning committee for approval?”

The Planning and Economic Development Portfolio Holder (Councillor Murphy) said in response that the highway capacity study referred to by Alderman Brooks was still awaited from Lancashire County Council and was now expected sometime in November.  He said that the most recent remaining highway capacity figure for the A6 corridor was 270 additional dwellings.  He said, with regard to the second part of the question asked by Alderman Brooks, that the Planning Committee would determine the applications referred to in accordance with the Council’s planning policies and decisions would be based on the usual planning considerations.  The Council’s officers would also provide advice to the Committee in the usual way.

Alderman Brooks said that many people in the rural east of the borough had been concerned that the most recent application for a large scale development in the A6 corridor had been deferred by the Planning Committee on 5 October.  He understood that the intention was that 7 applications for development along the A6 corridor were to be considered at a special meeting of the Planning Committee.  He asked, as a supplementary question, whether the Portfolio Holder was confident that it would be possible for the Planning Committee to consider so many major applications in a single day and to make decisions which would not be subject to legal challenge.

Councillor Murphy said that it was his understanding that once the highway capacity limit had been met the Planning Committee would not be able to approve further large scale housing developments, so it appeared to him to be inevitable that some of the 7 applications in the pipeline would have to be refused on highway grounds.

To receive reports from Cabinet Members. (In accordance with Procedure Rule 11.3 Councillors will be able to ask questions or make comments).

The Leader of the Council (Councillor Gibson) submitted a report. 

Councillor Gibson, when introducing his report, said that it was interesting that Lincolnshire County Council had voted against proposals for a combined authority, which meant that the proposals for that area would not proceed.  Councillor Gibson also referred to a number of compliments recently posted on the Council’s website and contrasted those positive comments with negative comments recently posted on Facebook by Councillor I Duffy.

Councillor Gibson said that he agreed with comments made by Councillor Michael Vincent about the likely ambition of the Leader of Blackpool Council, in his new role as Chairman of the shadow Combined Authority for Lancashire, to use the powers of the proposed combined authority to meet a significant proportion of Blackpool’s growth needs within the Wyre area.

Councillor Gibson said that he agreed with comments made by Councillor S Turner about the pointlessness of Lancashire County Council commissioning consultants to provide them with information on their future budget prospects which they already knew.

Councillor R Duffy referred to paragraph 3.3 of the Leader’s report and said that he was unfair to criticise other local councils.  She said that many councils’ around the country were in a very difficult position because of cuts in central government funding.  She said, for example, that West Sussex Council was considering proposals for schools to open only four days per week because of the need to make financial savings.  She also referred to central government’s disregard for localism and quoted, for example, the recent decision by the Secretary of State to allow fracking to proceed in Fylde against the wishes of the local population and their elected representatives.

Councillor Gibson restated his view that Wyre had managed its financial position in a better way than Lancashire County Council and many other councils.  With regard to fracking, he said that it had been Wyre’s view for some time that if fracking could be carried out safely it could potentially provide significant opportunities for Wyre, Lancashire and the north west region.

RESOLVED: that the report be noted.

Resources Portfolio Holder

The Resources Portfolio Holder (Councillor A Vincent) submitted a report.

Councillor A Vincent said, in response to comments made by Councillor B Stephenson, that the Council would not borrow to undertake repairs.  He reiterated his previous statement that repairs which were not urgent would only be carried out when necessary and when funds were available.  He said that if offers were received to purchase or takeover the running of Council owned assets, such offers would be considered.

RESOLVED that the report be noted.

The Street Scene, Parks and Open Spaces Portfolio Holder (Councillor Henderson) submitted a report.

Councillor Henderson reiterated, in response to a question from Councillor M Anderton, that the possibility of repainting the Mount Pavilion would be considered when the current refurbishment works had been completed and would be dependent on sufficient money remaining in the budget.

Councillor Henderson said that he would arrange for Councillor Barrowclough to be provided with a breakdown of the latest dog fouling figures referred to in paragraph 2.1 of his report.

RESOLVED that the report be noted.

The Planning and Economic Development Portfolio Holder (Councillor Murphy) submitted a report.

Councillor Murphy said, when introducing his report, that unfortunately, the bid for round 4 of Coastal Community Funding referred to in paragraph 2.1 of his report had been unsuccessful.  The Council had been informed that it had been near the top of the list of the 248 applications for funding received but had been unsuccessful on this occasion.  He said that the Council’s officers would now start working on a bid for the next round of funding.

Councillor Reeves asked why no action had been taken to enforce the planning condition requiring Fleetwood Town Football Club to sign a community use agreement prior to occupation of its new facilities at the Poolfoot Farm development, which had not been complied with.

Councillor Murphy said, in response, that he was aware that the Head of Planning had already contacted the Chief Executive of the football club about the need to comply with conditions attached to the planning permission for the development.

Councillor R Duffy referred to the information about the Local Plan in section 8 of the Portfolio Holder’s report and questioned why there was a difference between the figure previously quoted by the Leader of the Council for housing need of 266 dwellings per annum and the latest figure quoted in the emerging Local Plan of 479 new dwellings per annum.

Councillor Murphy said, in response, that the figure of 479 was the number assessed as the objectively assessed need (OAN) which was calculated in accordance with national guidelines and could not be changed.  The figure previously quoted by Councillor Gibson was an estimate of the number of new dwellings that could be delivered once various mitigating factors had been taken into account, including the inability to provide new housing in locations within flood zone 3 and various highway constraints.  He said that he believed the final actual figure for new houses would be closer to the figure quoted by Councillor Gibson than the figure currently shown as the OAN.

Councillor Murphy welcomed comments made by Councillor Michael Vincent on the success of the Wyred-Up Business Exhibition (Wyre Expo) and agreed that the Council’s Economic Development Team, although small, was very effective.

RESOLVED that the report be noted.

The Neighbourhood Services and Community Safety Portfolio Holder (Councillor Berry) submitted a report.

Councillor Berry said, in response to a question from Councillor Reeves, that domestic abuse was an issue which the Council took seriously and he was sure that the Council would participate in some way in the 16 day White Ribbon Campaign taking place in November.

RESOLVED that the report be noted.

The Leisure and Culture Portfolio Holder (Councillor Bowen) submitted a report.

Councillor Bowen said, in response to a question from Councillor M Anderton, that she and the Service Director, People and Places would be willing to meet with representatives of Fleetwood Town Council to discuss the possible extension of the skate bowl, if the Town Council submitted specific proposals.

RESOLVED that the report be noted.

The Health and Community Engagement Portfolio Holder (Councillor V Taylor) submitted a report.

Councillor Taylor, when introducing her report, said that the new model for the delivery of children’s services in Fylde and Wyre, referred to in paragraph 3.3 of her report, had been delayed.  Various workshop sessions were to be held in December, with the pilot scheme now due to start in February or March 2017, rather than in October 2016, as stated in the report.  The new model was due to become fully operational from April 2017.  She said, however, that she was pleased that Wyre was involved in the pilot, which she said was an exciting initiative.

Councillor Taylor said that she had not yet been able to attend any Healthier Fleetwood meetings but she would be pleased to attend a meeting when a suitable opportunity arose.

Councillor Taylor said, in response questions from Councillor Reeves and M Anderton, that Wyre was represented on the Lancashire Safeguarding Adult Board sub group, referred to in paragraph 3.1 of her report, by the Service Director, Health and Wellbeing. 

RESOLVED that the report be noted.

The Street Scene, Parks and Open Spaces Portfolio Holder (Councillor Henderson) said, in response to a question from the Planning and Economic Development Portfolio Holder (Councillor Murphy), that the last collection of green bins before Christmas would be on Friday 16 December.  Councillor Henderson said that green bins were now being collected from residents who had not subscribed to the new paid-for service.  He said that the decision not to request them back sooner had proved to be sensible, because a significant number of people had signed up for the new service later in the summer.  Residents could make an on-line request for their unused green bins to be retrieved by the Council.

Report of the Chairman of the Licensing Committee (Cllr Bridge).

The Chairman of the Licensing Committee (Councillor Bridge) submitted a report on issues dealt with by the Licensing Committee and the Licensing team during the period October 2015 to September 2016 inclusive.

RESOLVED that the report be noted.

Report of the Leader of the Council (Cllr Gibson) and the Service Director Performance and Innovation.

The Leader of the Council (Councillor Gibson) and the Service Director, Performance and Innovation submitted a report on a proposed Calendar of Meetings for 2017/18.

RESOLVED that the Calendar of Meetings for 2017/18, attached as Appendix 1 to the report, be approved, subject to the deletion of the Licensing Committee meeting on 29 March 2018.

No Notices of Motion have been submitted under Procedure Rule 14.

None received.