Agenda and minutes

County Councillors G Dowding and D Smith replaced County Councillors S Perkins and M Green at this meeting.

None.

Members are asked to consider any Pecuniary or Non-pecuniary Interests they may have to disclose to the meeting in relation to matters under consideration on the Agenda.

County Councillor A Barnes declared a non-prejudicial interest in agenda item 6a (Urgent Business – Rawtenstall Bus Station) as she was the Leader of Rossendale Borough Council.

Resolved:  That the Minutes of the meeting held on Tuesday, 7 June 2016 be confirmed and signed by the Chair.

The Committee considered the following decisions due to be taken by the Cabinet.

The Committee received a report outlining the activities each Champion had undertaken between 1 April 2015 and 31 March 2016, in their respective roles, from the resources allocated to them on an annual basis.

Resolved: That the recommendation set out in the report to Cabinet be noted, and that no additional comments or suggested alternative recommendations be made.

The Committee considered a report on the key performance against agreed targets of the Preston, South Ribble and Lancashire City Deal during and up to the end of 2015/16 (Year 2).

The Committee welcomed the considerable progress on highways infrastructure projects and on the housing completions.  It was noted that none of the reported variances would affect the overall forecast over the City Deal period as they represented profiling changes only.

Resolved: That the recommendation set out in the report to Cabinet be noted, and that no additional comments or suggested alternative recommendations be made.

The Committee considered a report on the County Council's financial position as at the end of 2015/16.

It was noted that the County Council's final revenue outturn position was an underspend of £0.601m against an agreed cash limit budget of £726.675m. 

The County Council's 2015/16 capital spending (excluding City Deal and non LCC funded schemes) in the year was £150.877m, which equated to 58.1% of the approved programme. The remaining balance reflected slippage due to a number of different factors that were explained in Appendix 'A' to the report.

Whilst the overall position was more favourable than had been reported previously, it was stressed that this must be balanced by consideration of the significant pressures facing the Council in 2016/17 and beyond.

The Committee noted that work to rephase and reprofile the Capital Programme was on-going.  A further report would be presented to Cabinet in September 2016.

It was MOVED and SECONDED  "That the Executive Scrutiny Committee requests the Deputy Leader of the County Council to consider the possibility of revising the funding for the Capital Programme with regard to revenue contributions in order to make a bigger transfer into the transitional reserve."  Upon being put to the vote the motion was LOST.

In response to comments about the work being undertaken by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) and the need for local authorities to be fully involved in discussions around the future provision and delivery of services across Lancashire, the Committee noted that public sector partners and agencies including all District Councils had been invited to attend a work shop to discuss the matter in October.  PwC were due to complete their report in September and the work shop would provide an opportunity for all partners to discuss the PwC report.

Resolved:  That the recommendations set out in the report to Cabinet be noted, and that no additional comments or suggested alternative recommendations be made.

The Committee considered the draft Lancashire Safeguarding Children Board Annual Report 2015/16.

The Committee welcomed the report including the Board's review of the performance data collected from partners.  Members agreed that it was important to understand the context of the data and the reasons why some of the figures had risen and others fallen. 

Resolved:  That the recommendations set out in the report to Cabinet be noted, and that no additional comments or suggested alternative recommendations be made.

The Committee considered and welcomed the draft Lancashire Safeguarding Adults Board Annual Report 2015/16.

The Cabinet Member for Adult and Community Services highlighted a number of important issues set out in the report, including:

• The significant challenges facing those responsible for safeguarding vulnerable adults
• Two thirds (6,502) of the referrals (9,879) to MASH (between January 2015 and end of February 2016) did not merit a safeguarding review.  It was important to have a robust system and evidence to show that the referrals were being handled properly.
• Lancashire had been identified as the highest geographical area for suicides between April 2014 and September 2015.  It was important to identify any trends in  suicides e.g. drug abuse 
• The closure of Calderstones would have a serious and profound effect on the safeguarding of adults in Lancashire.  It was important to obtain an assurance from health services about continuing care and that the funding burden would not fall on Lancashire tax payers.

Resolved:  That the recommendations set out in the report to Cabinet be noted, and that, subject to the above-mentioned points, no additional comments or suggested alternative recommendations be made.

The Committee considered the following reports on Key Decisions due to be taken by individual Cabinet Members as indicated.

The Committee considered a report on proposed highway improvement works for the Bamber Bridge local centre.  It was noted that the report asked the Cabinet Member for Highways and Transport to approve the proposals for implementation and the commencement of the detailed design phase.

The Committee was informed that the total cost of the proposed works would be met from funding already secured through the Preston, South Ribble and Lancashire City Deal.  It was reported that the total cost of the works was £3.35m and not £1.4m, as set out in the financial implications section of the report.  Members were informed that the £1.4m related only to the cost of the phase one works and that the revised overall cost of the proposed works did not have any effect on the recommendation to the Cabinet Member for Highways and Transport.

Resolved:  That the recommendations set out in the report to the Cabinet Member for Highways and Transport be noted, and that no additional comments or suggested alternative recommendations be made.

An item of urgent business may only be considered under this heading where, by reason of special circumstances to be recorded in the Minutes, the Chair of the meeting is of the opinion that the item should be considered at the meeting as a matter of urgency. Wherever possible, the Chief Executive should be given advance warning of any Member's intention to raise a matter under this heading.

The Chair of the Committee agreed that the following report in relation to Rawtenstall bus station should be considered as an item of Urgent Business.  The reason for the urgency was that the next meeting of the Committee was scheduled to take place on 6 September 2016 and the demolition and enabling works were scheduled to commence in August.  It was agreed that the report should be dealt with at this meeting to avoid any delay in the implementation of the scheme.

(The reason for report being presented as an item of urgent business to Executive Scrutiny Committee is that the demolition and enabling works are scheduled to commence next month. Given that the next Executive Scrutiny meeting is timetabled for 6^th September 2016, this would have inevitably delayed the implementation of this scheme.)

As mentioned above, the Committee was informed that the Chair had agreed to a report in respect of Rawtenstall bus station being considered at the meeting as an item of Urgent Business.  This was to avoid any delay in the implementation of the scheme.

The Committee considered a report in relation to the County Council entering into a Grant Funding and Management Agreement with Rossendale Borough Council to enable the Borough Council to construct, operate and maintain a bus station in Rawtenstall. 

A concern was expressed that the County Council was not a member of the Rossendale Together Barnfield Partnership despite the Council providing a significant contribution towards the construction and maintenance of Rossendale bus station.  That meant that the County Council would not receive a return on its investment from the development.

It was MOVED and SECONDED "That the Executive Scrutiny Committee does not support the recommendation to the Cabinet Members, and that the Deputy Leader be asked to give serious consideration to handing over such sums of money to Rossendale BC, but if he agrees to do that he be requested to look at the possibility of making sure that the County Council's contribution leads to a sufficient return from the RTB Partnership which is going to develop the centre of Rawtenstall."  Upon being put to the vote the motion was LOST and it was:

Resolved:  That the recommendations set out in the report to the Deputy Leader of the County Council and the Cabinet Member for Highways and Transport be noted, and that no additional comments or suggested alternative recommendations be made.

The next meeting of the Executive Scrutiny Committee will be held on Tuesday, 6 September at 2pm, County Hall, Preston.

It was noted that the next meeting of the Committee would be held on Tuesday 6 September 2016 at 2.00 p.m. at County Hall, Preston.

The Committee is asked to consider whether, under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act, 1972, it considers that the public should be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the following items of business on the grounds that there would be a likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in the appropriate paragraph of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act, 1972, as indicated against the heading to the item.

Resolved: - That under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act, 1972, the press and public should be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the following items of business on the grounds that there would be a likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in the appropriate paragraphs of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act, 1972 and that in all circumstances of the case the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.

The Committee considered the following reports on Key Decisions due to be taken by individual Cabinet Members as indicated.

(Not for Publication - exempt information as defined in Paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act, 1972. It is considered that in all the circumstances of the case the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.)

(Not for publication – Exempt information as defined in Paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972. It is considered that in all the circumstances of the case the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information)

The Committee considered a report on the proposed sale of the former site for Hameldon College, Kiddow Lane, Burnley.

Resolved: - That the recommendations set out in the report to the Deputy Leader of the County Council be noted and that no additional comments or suggested alternative recommendations be made.

(Not for Publication - exempt information as defined in Paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act, 1972. It is considered that in all the circumstances of the case the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.)

(Not for publication – Exempt information as defined in Paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972. It is considered that in all the circumstances of the case the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information)

The Committee considered a report on the proposed award of a contract for the supply and distribution of rock salt in Lancashire.

Resolved: - That the recommendation set out in the report to the Cabinet Member for Highways and Transport be noted and that no additional comments or suggested alternative recommendations be made.