Decisions

A decision on the approval to award a RFQ at Ormskirk CE Primary School - Window Replacement.

Sarah Robinson, Head of Service, Property, on behalf of Simon Lawrence, Director of Growth & Regeneration, took the decision as set out in the report.

A decision on the approval of an award for a request for quotation (RFQ) at Burnley Rockwood Nursery School – Boilers.

Sarah Robinson, Head of Service, Property, on behalf of Simon Lawrence, Director of Growth & Regeneration, took the decision as set out in the report.

Sarah Robinson, Head of Service, Property, on behalf of Simon Lawrence, Director of Growth and Regeneration, took the decision which has been delegated to her in accordance with the Council's Directorate Schemes of Delegation to approve the award of a quotation process at West End Primary School, Morecambe – Boiler Plant (Phase 2).

Sean Greene, the Head of Pension Fund, as authorised by the Director of Finance has approved Mr K Ellard (Lancashire Local Pension Board scheme member representative) to attend the PLSA Local Authority Conference on 16-18 June 2025 in Bedfordshire and the payment of any associated delegate fees, travel, or accommodation costs as appropriate by the Lancashire County Pension Fund.

Sarah Robinson, Head of Service, Property, on behalf of Simon Lawrence, Director of Growth and Regeneration, took the decision which has been delegated to her in accordance with the Council's Directorate Schemes of Delegation to approve the award of a quotation process at Ryelands Primary School, Lancaster – Boiler Replacement.

A decision to approve the award of a single supplier contract for the provision of electronic payments.

Khadija Saeed, Head of Service Corporate Finance, on behalf of the Director of Finance and Commerce took a decision to approve the direct award of the contract for the provision of electronic payments.

A decision to approve the current Authority contract for the provision of treasury management consultancy services.

Khadija Saeed, Head of Corporate Finance, on behalf of Director of Finance and Commerce took a decision to extend the contract for the provision of a treasury management consultancy service for 12 months to the 31^st May 2026.

Transfer of £7544.34 from PPMS 16253 to PPMS 16241 due to the scheme having an incorrect estimate.

Kirstie Williams, Interim Head of Service, on behalf of the Matt Townsend, Director of Highways and Transport, took the decision to approve the transfer of budgets.

A decision to award a contract for the Managed Service for Surfacing and Potholes repair.

Matt Townsend, Director of Highways and Transport took the decision which has been delegated to him in accordance with 9.52 (51) of the Council's Scheme of Delegation to Officers to approve the award of a contract for the Managed Service for Surfacing and Potholes.

The First Aid and Medical Supplies contract provides a range of first aid products, medical products and textiles to meet the needs of the Authority. The product requirements include high volume items such as clinical wipes, gloves, hand rub and first aid kits and low quantity high value items including Hoists, slings and beds.

The First Aid and Medical Supplies contract is mainly accessed by older people care services, as the goods supplied on this contract service the Authority owned and managed residential homes, day care centres and the disability services. In addition, the contract can be accessed by facilities management (FM) and requisitioners who order on behalf of buildings not managed by FM.

The procurement is for the renewal of an existing contract which is currently due to end on the 31^st August 2025.

It is recommended that an open above threshold procurement is conducted to reprocure this contract. The estimated value is £1,260.000 over the 4 year term. The contract will commence on 1^st September 2025 for an initial period of two years, with the option to extend for any number of defined periods up to a further two years.

Paul Lee, Director of Adult Care and Provider Services took a decision to approve the re-tender of the First Aid and Medical Supplies contract via an Above Threshold Open tender process, in compliance with the Procurement Act 2023.

A decision on the extension of the provision of physical library stock to Lancashire County Council and Lancashire School Library Service.

Paul Turner, Director of Education, Culture and Skills, took the decision as set out in the report.

A decision on the approval of a mini-competiton for the provision of asphalt to Sandown Road, Rossendale.

Kirstie Williams, Interim Head of Service Highway Operations and Design, on behalf of Matt Townsend, Director of Highways and Transport, took the decision as set out in the report.

A decision on the approval of a mini-competiton for the provision of asphalt to Charnleys Lane, West Lancs.

Kirstie Williams, Interim Head of Service Highway Operations and Design, on behalf of Matt Townsend, Director of Highways and Transport, took the decision as set out in the report.

A decision on the approval of a mini-competiton for the provision of asphalt to Stump Cross Lane, Ribble Valley.

Kirstie Williams, Interim Head of Service Highway Operations and Design, on behalf of Matt Townsend, Director of Highways and Transport, took the decision as set out in the report.

A decision on the approval of a mini-competiton for the provision of asphalt to New Lane, Wyre.

Kirstie Williams, Interim Head of Service Highway Operations and Design, on behalf of Matt Townsend, Director of Highways and Transport, took the decision as set out in the report.

Heloise MacAndrew, Director of Law and Governance presented the council's draft Annual Governance Statement for 2024/25 and Code of Corporate Governance for 2025/26.

It was highlighted that a new format had been used this year to better align with CIPFA/SOLACE guidance and that the Head of Internal Audit's annual opinion was draft at this stage.

Resolved: That

i.  The draft Annual Governance Statement for 2024/25 be approved;

ii.  The Director of Law and Governance be authorised to make any subsequential amendments to the Annual Governance Statement for 2024/25, in consultation with the Chair of the Audit, Risk and Governance Committee;

iii.  The signing of the final Annual Governance Statement for 2024/25 by the Chief Executive and the Leader of the Council, following publication of the council's Statement of Accounts, be noted; and

iv.  The Code of Corporate Governance for 2025/26 be recommended to Full Council for approval.

Heloise MacAndrew, Director of Law and Governance presented the updated Corporate Risk and Opportunity Register.

In response to concern about the council's capacity to respond to devolution and Local Government Reorganisation, it was highlighted that the corporate register included a risk about responding to national policy and issues. It was requested that officers review whether the two should be considered separately in future.

It was noted that the risk score for recruitment and retention had decreased since the last quarterly update. This was partly due to the fact that the council's turnover rate was consistently below the national average, the council's vacancy rate had reduced from 11.74% to 9.42% over the last year, and there had been significant work to reduce agency spend and to fill posts which had been vacant for a long time.

Resolved: That the updated Corporate Risk and Opportunity Register be approved.

Resolved: That the press and members of the public 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 I of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972.

It was considered that in all the circumstances, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information.

Ian Pinches, Senior Audit Manager at Grant Thornton UK presented the Audit Progress Report and Sector Update as of March 2025.

It was highlighted that the council's statement of accounts for 2023/24 had been signed off in February 2025 and the Audit Findings Report for 2024/25 would be finalised by November 2025.

In response to questions, members were informed that:

·  Grant Thornton had qualified teams with sufficient capacity to meet the deadline for the Audit Findings Report of November 2025.

·  More information about Grant Thornton's training sessions and webinars, once available, would be provided to members after the meeting.

·  In relation to potential Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) in Lancashire, it was likely the current authorities' balance sheets would be split between any newly formed authorities. This process would bring challenges as both assets and liabilities were distributed. The county council would be submitting a proposal to government for LGR by November 2025 and balance sheets would be one of the factors considered. The role of the Audit, Risk and Governance Committee in the LGR process was to be determined, but it was highlighted there was lots of recent practice and learning from other authorities to take on board.

Resolved: That the External Audit: Progress Report and Sector Update be noted.

Andy Dalecki, Head of Internal Audit presented the Internal Audit Annual Plan for 2025/26.

It was highlighted that the audit plan would be updated following the outcome of the ongoing Care Quality Commission (CQC) inspection, to align with the priorities and actions identified. It was noted that the updated audit plan for Adult Services would be shared with committee members before the next meeting.

In response to questions from members, it was highlighted that:

·  Internal Audit would review whether the council's targets in relation to SEND were realistic and ensure any improvements were not set up to fail.

·  The Audit Plan was now linked more explicitly to the council's corporate priorities, so it was clearer to members and the public how it would add value.

·  The Internal Audit Service would be supporting the new Lancashire Combined County Authority (CCA) and the establishment of its control and governance arrangements. The Head of Internal Audit would also issue an annual opinion for the CCA.

Resolved: That the Internal Audit Annual Plan for 2025/26 be approved.

Andy Dalecki, Head of Internal Audit presented an update on the Internal Audit Service's work and outcomes for 2024/25, for the period up to 28 February 2025.

In response to questions, members were informed that:

·  Information about the high-risk audits with outstanding actions from 2021/22 and 2022/23 would be included in the next update report.

·  Schools were selected for audit on a risk basis. Concerns in other areas, such as attainment, often indicated risks in other areas too. Lessons learned from school audits were compiled and shared with other schools.

·  There were challenges across Adult's Services and Children's Services relating to the procurement of agency care due to the high number of service users. Internal Audit's work ensured appropriate controls were in place.

Resolved: That the Internal Audit Progress Report be noted.

Resolved: That the minutes of the Audit, Risk and Governance Committee meeting held on 27 January 2025 be confirmed as an accurate record.

Heather Fox, Cultural Development Manager and Olivia O'Connell, Community Funding Manager presented the Lancashire Culture and Sport Fund Annual Report for 2024/25.

It was noted that, since the report had been published, updated figures for the latest round of funding had been collated and would be shared with committee members by email.

Members expressed their thanks to the Lancashire Culture and Sport Fund team for another successful year of the scheme.

Resolved: That the Lancashire Culture and Sport Fund Annual Report for 2024/25 be noted.

Josh Mynott, Head of Democratic Services presented the Local Member Grants Scheme Annual Report for 2024/25.

It was highlighted that:

·  The date range in paragraph 19 should have been 1 April 2024 to 30 September 2024.

·  There was always a delay between a councillor's decision to award a grant, the council making payment to the organisation, and receiving evidence of expenditure relating to that grant. However, there were no concerns to report.

·  Since the report had been published, updated year-end figures for 2024/25 had been collated and would be shared with committee members by email. In total, 457 grants had been approved in 2024/25, totalling £163,024.29.

In response to questions, members were informed that:

·  "Unsatisfactory evidence of expenditure" usually meant an organisation had only provided receipts for some of the money awarded to them, rather than that they had not spent the grant as intended.

·  Grants were often awarded to groups running community events and which had only formed for that purpose, so obtaining receipts from them afterwards could be challenging. If no response was received, the relevant councillor was informed and their support in collecting evidenced of expenditure was welcomed.

·  Future reports would list "no evidence of expenditure" and "unsatisfactory evidence of expenditure" separately.

·  Some councillors did not spend all of their allocated budget.

Members expressed their thanks to the Local Member Grants Scheme team and noted their hard work at the end of the financial year when there was a higher number of applications.

It was agreed that an annual report to the committee was sufficient, so the next update would be provided at the committee meeting in April 2026.

Members highlighted the importance of informing the relevant councillor when an organisation applied for a grant but had not previously provided evidence of expenditure.

Resolved: That the Local Member Grants Scheme Annual Report for 2024/25 be noted.

A decision to commence a procurement exercise for the supply and delivery of catering to Lancashire County Council.

Simon Lawrence, Director of Growth and Regeneration took the decision to approve the commencement of a procurement exercise for a single supplier contract, for the supply and delivery of catering disposables to Lancashire County Council.

A decision on the acquisition of a property in Fylde as part of the childrens residential inhouse provision programme.

Gary Pearse, Head of Estates, on behalf of the Simon Lawrence, Director of Growth and Regeneration, took the decision as set out in the report.

A decision to approve the acquisition of a property in Fylde as part of the children's residential inhouse provision programme.

Gary Pearse, Head of Estates, on behalf of Simon Lawrence, Director of Growth and Regeneration took the decision as set out in the report.

The Authority is seeking to commence the procurement of Ground Investigation Services, for a new framework starting on 1st August 2025.

The Agreement will be used to carry out site investigations for new highway schemes, existing highway maintenance schemes, new council buildings including new school developments and the potential treatment of mineshafts and shallow mine workings.

The current agreement expires on 31st July 2025. This consists of two Lots;

Lot 1: Work Packages under £30,000.

Lot 2: Work Packages over £30,000.

The intention for the new tender is to maintain this structure, but with the Lots being for Work Packages under / over £50,000.

The work content will relate to Ground Investigation (i.e. boreholes/soil sampling and testing/ factual and interpretative reporting) as outlined in the Specification.  The Agreement will be used to carry out site investigations for new highway schemes, existing highway maintenance schemes, new council buildings including new school developments and the potential treatment of mineshafts and shallow mine workings.

The investigation works will comprise of hand-excavated trial pits, cable percussion boreholes, rotary open hole and core drilling, dynamic probing, environmental probing, road pavement and structural coring.  Sampling will be required, together with the production of borehole logs and factual reports, where required. Some external chemical analysis and geotechnical laboratory testing will be required and is included within the delivery of this Agreement.

Matt Townsend, Director of Highways and Transport took a decision to authorise the commencement of procurement for Ground Investigation Services.

Transfer £50,000 for Surfacing of Stanley Street Ormskirk.

From:

Project ID 14731 23/24 A570 Derby Street West of Stanley Street LDF Tranche 3 23/24 (5849)

To:

Project ID 7625 18/19 Derby Street Railway Bridge

This is in order for the surfacing work to be delivered as part of the ongoing Derby Street Railway Bridge works contract.

This will allow the work to be completed within the planned programme, taking advantage of the existing site establishment and contractor availability, as surfacing is already planned as part of the bridge works project.

John Davies, Head of Service, Highways Network Management, on behalf of Matt Townsend, Director of Highways and Transport, took a decision to transfer funds between projects in order to deliver the surfacing works to Stanley Street, Ormskirk.

This report sets out the proposed timetable and plan for the recruitment to the permanent Executive Director of Resources role at Lancashire County Council.

The Chief Executive, following consultation with the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Employment Committee, approved the recommendations as set out in the report.

Sue Lott, Urgent  Care, Acute and Prisons, Adult Social Care, Lancashire County Council provided a brief report which contained an update to the Health and Wellbeing Board on the Better Care Fund, including the Quarter 3 submission and finance report.  The Board were requested to formally ratify the Quarter 3 report.

The 2025/26 Better Care Fund Planning Guidance was issued on 31 January 2025, with a tight timescale for sign off and submission of 31 March 2025.  The requirement is for a one-year plan only, as central Government have signalled a focused look at the Better Care Fund throughout 2025/26 with revised expectations and guidance published in advance of 2026 onwards.

A brief overview of the planning requirements is included, and the Health and Wellbeing Board is invited to share expectations on the content of the Lancashire Plan.

The Lancashire and South Cumbria Better Care Funds review undertaken by 31ten is now complete and representatives took the Health and Wellbeing Board and the Lancashire Place Partnership Board through the reports and recommendations prior to this meeting.  The Boards are invited to share their reflections, expectations and recommendations.

The Board noted that the report had been prepared on behalf of the Co-Chairs of the Lancashire Better Care Fund Board for the Health and Wellbeing Board and further details on the following can be found in that report:

·  Lancashire Better Care Fund Quarter 3 Submission and Finance Report.

·  2025/26 Better Care Fund Plan.

·  Lancashire and South Cumbria Better Care Funds Review.

·  NHS Additional Contribution to Social Care – Position.

·  Lancashire Better Care Fund Board Updates.

·  Focus On: Lancashire Technology Enabled Care (TEC).

Following the presentation, the following comments were made:

·  That both the Chief Executives of Lancashire County Council and the Lancashire and South Cumbria Integrated Care Board are committed to finding an agreeable resolution for this financial year.

·  Thanks were given with regards to the Supported Living Plans and how this area of work is making a real difference to peoples lives in allowing them to live independently.

·  It was welcoming to see the emphasis of shifting from bed-based care settings to community and neighbourhoods and look at the opportunity to have a complete alignment between the Better Care Fund aspect and the wider-place partnership.

·  Look at directing some of the funds to improvement projects to help the Prevent agenda and looking at different ways of approaching cohorts.

·  Link up with Population Health and the work that is happening in that area.

·  There is only a small amount of the Better Care Fund that is focused on prevention and there is a need to look at how that can be utilised better.

·  There are Frameworks such as the Centre for Ageing Better and Age Friendly Communities for the over 65s, which the Board would welcome further information on as the plans develop to see how well they are progressing.

·  There is a shift from sickness to prevention and seeing that Lancashire becomes age friendly.

·  In terms of the review of the Disabled Facilities Grant, it was noted that this would be presented to the Health and Wellbeing Board at its' next meeting in July.

Resolved:  That the Lancashire Health and Wellbeing Board:

(i)  Considered the report and recommendations from the review of the Lancashire and South Cumbria Better Care Funds, agreed the areas the Board will endorse, and committed to provide oversight of progress against those.

(ii)  Formally ratified the Lancashire Quarter 3 submission.

(iii)  Shared key elements and priorities the Board expects to be included in the 2025/26 Lancashire Better Care Fund Plan.

(iv)  Considered and endorsed the proposals to bring in support through Partners in Care and Health for the Lancashire Better Care Fund and partnership.

(v)  Requested that an update on Frameworks such as the Centre for Ageing Better and Age Friendly Communities for the over 65s, be presented at a future meeting on how they are developing and making a difference to the residents of Lancashire.

(vi)  Requested that the Disabled Facilities Grant review and recommendations be presented to the Board in July 2025.

Clare Platt, Health Equity, Welfare and Partnerships, Lancashire County  Council and Jackie Moran, Lancashire Place-Based Partnership, NHS Lancashire and South Cumbria Integrated Care Board outlined the operational and strategic synergies between Lancashire Health and Wellbeing Board and Lancashire Place Partnership.  The report also identifies how the relationship could be strengthened to improve health outcomes for the communities of Lancashire.

The report provided further information on the following:

·  Health and Wellbeing Board – Look Back

·  Health and Wellbeing Board – Look Forward

·  Lancashire Place Partnership – Look Back

·  Lancashire Place Partnership – Look Forward

·  Options and Proposals

The Board were asked to endorse the proposed areas of focus for 2025/26 for the Lancashire Place Partnership and agree the alignment of the Health and Wellbeing Board with the District Health and Wellbeing Partnerships, Place Partnership and Provider Collaborative Board.  The Board were also asked to support the joint development of the 2025/26 delivery plans with specific deliverables/benefits.

The Board noted that the proposed areas of focus for 2025/26 were:

(i)  Develop the case further and facilitate the delivery of a Neighbourhood Health Model of Care.

(ii)  Align the strategic leadership with the governance, oversight and partnership structures to enable better co-ordination of decision making and delivery across key partner organisations.

(iii)  Build shared enabling functions such as data, estates, workforce development, quality improvement, research and innovation capabilities to deliver improvements at scale and pace.

It was outlined to the Board how the above is intended to work in practice:

(i)  Place Partnership will become the vehicle for delivering short term priorities in 2025/26 and promoting joint working with the NHS.  The short term priorities will become part of the wider Health and Wellbeing Strategy.

(ii)  The interests of the District Health and Wellbeing Partnerships will be represented on the Health and Wellbeing Board via:

(a)  The District Chief Executive Officers representative with a link into the District Chief Executive Officers Group as part of the Lancashire Place Partnership arrangements.

(b)  The existing elected district member from each locality on the Health and Wellbeing Board will act as an additional link between the Health and Wellbeing Partnerships and Board.

(c)  There will be regular liaison between officers supporting the Health and Wellbeing Board and Health and Wellbeing Partnerships to support joint planning/review progress etc.

(iii)  Place Partnership Programme Board will report into Health and Wellbeing Board, Integrated Care Board, Provider Collaborative, and Lancashire Leaders/County Combined Authority (as appropriate).

Following the presentation, the following comments were made:

·  There is a real opportunity to align the Place Partnership and the Health and Wellbeing Board.

·  To create a singular focus across the whole spectrum and align with the Better Care Fund to create an age friendly Lancashire.

·  To also take into consideration the Local Government Reorganisation which can help to accelerate the proposals for alignment.

Resolved:  That the Lancashire Health and Wellbeing Board:

(i)  Considered how the relationship between the Lancashire Health and Wellbeing Board and Lancashire Place Partnership could be strengthened to improve health outcomes for the communities of Lancashire.

(ii)  Considered the following issues for inclusion in the consultation for the refreshed Joint Health and Wellbeing Strategy:

·  Housing and Health

·  Work and Health

·  Climate and Health

(iii)  Endorsed the closer alignment of the Health and Wellbeing Partnerships with the priorities of the Health and Wellbeing Board.

Officers of Public Health and Wellbeing, Lancashire County Council provided an update on work to address the three key Health and Wellbeing Board priorities:

(i)  Best Start in Life

(ii)  Healthy Hearts

(iii)  Happier Minds

An update was given on the associated milestones and performance to 31 December 2024, as outlined in Appendix 'A' on the agenda.  Further information can also be found  in the report.

Steve Morton, Consultant in Public Health – Best Start in Life, Lancashire County Council provided a further update on activity and progress to 31 December 2024, including performance metrics, forward look and opportunities for improvement/further collaboration which can be found in the report.

The Board noted that opportunities for collaboration/advocacy of the Board was to continue its support to ensure:

• An integrated approach to deliver on the areas identified across services including health partners.
• Commitment to joint commissioning and funding between the NHS Integrated Care Board, County Council, and other relevant partners where appropriate, for example in relation to speech and language services and oral health improvement.

Following the Best Start in Life presentation, the following comments were made:

• Concern was raised with regards to oral health and children starting school who were not toilet trained and that responsibilities in this area was falling to teachers, who are there to teach.  The Board were informed that this is a social problem not a medical issue and that work is ongoing in Family Hubs on educating parents and young children in oral health as well as other social issues.  There are also a lot of resources being put into oral health.
• It was welcomed that there had been some progress on oral health and that conversations were happening as it can have a huge impact in the quality of life and there is Public Health intervention happening and work is ongoing.
• Speech and language will be a continued focus for the Board as again it can lead to lifelong impacts.  It was noted that the Speech and Language Plan will be shared at a future meeting.

Aidan Kirkpatrick, Consultant in Public Health – Healthy Hearts, Lancashire County Council provided a further update on activity and progress to 31 December 2024, including performance metrics, forward look and opportunities for improvement/further collaboration which can be found in the report.

The Lancashire Healthy Hearts Programme was set up in Spring 2022, which was in line with the National Best Practice Framework (published by Public Health England and the Association of Directors of Public Health) encompassing the following seven thematic workstreams:

(i)  Tobacco

(ii)  Alcohol

(iii)  Physical activity

(iv)  Supporting healthy weight

(v)  Food diet and nutrition

(vi)  Health in all policies approach

(vii)  Cardiovascular risk modification

The Board noted that opportunities for collaboration/advocacy of the Board was that it had been a positive nine-month period for Healthy Hearts and key opportunities for collaboration included:

·  Ongoing engagement with General Practice teams to help develop further referral pathways between General Practice and the commissioned behaviour change programmes.

·  Working with and supporting NHS colleagues around the implementation of the NHS Position Statement on Physical Activity once it is published.

·  Aligning resource allocation to the broader prevention agenda, so that the appropriate level of assurance can be offered to the Health and Wellbeing Board regarding the implementation of the respective workstream delivery plans.

Following the Healthy Hearts presentation, the following comments were made:

·  It was pleasing to note that health checks had increased and surpassed pre-covid figures.

·  It was noted that the Board should focus more on physical activities going forwards.

·  Smoking during pregnancy was still a concern in some districts, with higher figures in certain parts of the County.  However as the good work continues this will start to decrease as this is a key part of the agenda working closely with NHS commissioned colleagues and expectant mothers.

·  Lancashire County Council Maternity Services also offer in-house pregnancy support with the Smoke Free Service.

·  There has been a lot of improvement and achievement has been made in what the Board has set out to do, however obesity is now the new smoking issue which undermines the other benefits that have been achieved in Lancashire.  It was noted that work continued to tackle the issue of obesity in Lancashire which can also affect the emotional aspects.

·  Primary care is under a lot of pressure and the preventative work that is being done, is supporting residents from entering the system.

·  It was noted that 72% of clinical effectiveness around appropriate management of hypertension is a considerable achievement and Primary Care have risen to the challenge.

·  The next area for collaboration work between the County Council and District Councils is complex housing needs.

·  It was requested that the Board receive data at a future meeting on obesity to help understand the issues, in order to address the health inequalities.

Paula Hawley-Evans, Consultant in Public Health – Happier Minds, Lancashire County Council provided a further update on activity and progress to date, including performance metrics, forward look and opportunities for improvement/further collaboration which can be found in the report.

The Board were reminded that Happier Minds is a partnership and system leadership approach to promoting good mental health in individuals and communities. There is a lot of work in Lancashire that supports this programme, including statutory provision.  The programme focusses on addressing six key strands of work:

(i)  Emotional wellbeing and self-care

(ii)  Loneliness and social isolation 

(iii)Substance use - alcohol and drugs 

(iv)Self-harm and suicide prevention 

(v)  Dementia 

(vi)Gambling related harm

The Board noted that opportunities for collaboration/advocacy of the Board were to continue to focus on delivering the Happier Minds priorities through partnership working with key stakeholders across communities.  This includes the Lancashire Drug and Alcohol Partnership, Lancashire and South Cumbria Suicide Prevention Oversight Group, the Lancashire Complex Needs Alliance and Lancashire's Smokefree Alliance.

Following the Happier Minds presentation, the following comments were made:

·  In terms of loneliness and social isolation events, the Board noted that around 500 people had attended and approximately 50 volunteers had been involved, however, if required this can be scaled up.

·  It is felt that there is a much wider implication in terms of loneliness and social isolation.

·  In terms of the increase in ketamine abuse, Public Health have commissioned We Are With You to go into schools and speak to pupils on the wider substance misuse agenda.

·  Social isolation is particularly prevalent in rural areas and social prescribing teams are addressing this, particularly in Chorley, through funding from Local Government and Primary Care Networks.  There is also the Lancashire Volunteer Partnership Befriending Service too.

·  Work is ongoing around self-harm in 10-14 year olds with colleagues in the Integrated Care Board and there is still a lot more work to do in terms of wraparound care/support in terms of young people's mental health.

Resolved:  (i)  That the Health and Wellbeing Board considered the performance update and endorsed the areas identified as opportunities for wider collaboration and advocacy of the Board.

(ii)  That Steve Morton, Consultant in Public Health, Lancashire County Council presents the Speech and Language Plan to the Health and Wellbeing Board at a future meeting.

(iii)  It was requested that Aidan Kirkpatrick, Consultant in Public Health, Lancashire County Council would present the Board with data at a future meeting on obesity to help understand the issues, in order to address the health inequalities.

A decision on approve the award of a quotation process for Heating Replacement at Whitworth Tonacliffe Primary School.

Sarah Robinson, Head of Service, Property, on behalf of Simon Lawrence, Director of Growth and Regeneration,  took the decision which has been delegated to her in accordance with the Council's Directorate Schemes of Delegation to approve the award of a quotation process at Whitworth Tonacliffe Primary School for the provision of a Heating Replacement.

Resolved: That the minutes of the meeting held on 11 March 2025 be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

Mo Isap, Chair of the Lancashire Business Board gave a verbal update on the recent activities and work of the Lancashire Business Board.

It was reported that the work of the Business Board had been initially focussed on the Lancashire Growth Plan, which had been unveiled at the Convention of the North. It was noted that it had been positively received and widely welcomed. Given the positive nature of responses it was agreed that the document be endorsed by the LCCA subject to minor amendments being incorporated into a final version which will be formally approved by the LCCA at its meeting in June.

It was proposed that the Lancashire Business Board would not form part of the national Business Board network and that the £25k set aside for membership of the network, along with an additional £25k should be made available to help the Business Board connect with the business community, including to assist the public relations and communication teams to set out a strategic, business-centric communications approach.

Resolved: That the £25k set aside for membership of the network, along with an additional £25k, be made available to help the Business Board connect with the business community, including to assist the public relations and communication teams to set out a strategic, business-centric communications approach.

Peter Bell, Highway Regulation Manager, on behalf of Matt Townsend, Director of Highways and Transport took the decision to approve the proposal for the purpose of avoiding conflict between vehicles and pedestrians by using the controlled pedestrian facility across the exit arm of the junction.

A decision on the comissioning of an Adult Community Substance Use Treatment and Recovery Service.

Jessica Belle Whitcombe, Category Manager, on behalf of Dr Sakthi Karunanithi, Director of Public Health, Wellbeing and Communities took the decision to approve the contract award for the provision for Adult Community Substance Use Treatment and Recovery Service.

A decision to increase the value of a contract for the provision of LED Road Lighting Lanterns.

Kirstie Williams, interim Head of Service Highways Operations and Design, on behalf of the Matt Townsend, Director of Highways and Transport took a decision to increase the value of the contract for the provision of LED Road Lighting Lanterns as set out in Appendix 'A'.

Transfer of Budget on the following Programmes to Clear Unprocessed Costs;

Responsive Patching

Capital ABC Resurfacing

Capital Urban Resurfacing

Capital Rural Resurfacing

LDF

Capital Drainage

Capital Footways

Matt Townsend, Director of Highways and Transport, took a decision to approve the transfer of budgets as set out in Appendix 'A'.

The purpose of these proposals are to prevent conflict between potential U-turning vehicles and the pedestrians using the controlled pedestrian facility across the exit arm of the junction.

Consultations
Formal consultation was carried out between 07 March-2025 until 04 April-2025 which included advertising in the local press and notices being displayed on site. Divisional county councillors were consulted along with the council's usual consultees and the consultation documents posted on the council's website.

Following formal consultation No Objections were received.

Peter Bell, Highway Regulation Manager, on behalf of Matt Townsend, Director of Highways and Transport took the decision to approve the proposal for the purpose of avoiding conflict between vehicles and pedestrians by using the controlled pedestrian facility across the exit arm of the junction.

A decision on the transfer of budgets from Footways unallocated PPMS 13953 to fund schemes where budget had been previously utilised to fund structural defects.

As set out in Appendix 'A'.

Matt Townsend, Director of Highways and Transport took a decision to approve transfer from unallocated as set out in Appendix 'A'.

The Head of Fund presented a report on items considered by the Pension Fund Committee on 7 March 2025 under Part I of the agenda, referenced the 2025/26 Lancashire County Pension Fund budget and confirmed that the Fund was in a comfortable position ahead of the Valuation. The Board also noted the approval of the revised Responsible Investment Policy for the Fund as recommended by the Task and Finish Group

Resolved: The Board noted the Part I reports considered by the Pension Fund Committee on 7 March 2025.

Mr Neville, Senior Democratic Services Officer, presented a report on training activity that had taken place since the last meeting, and the record of individual Board member participation in external/internal training events over 12 months.

He also reported that Ms Parker had confirmed she had viewed recordings in the online library of the 1 October and 10 December 2024 workshops and the Training Record would be updated to reflect that.

Regarding the online training Mr Dunstan confirmed he had completed Module 8 and Board members discussed the 'current issues' section and suggested that the provider be asked to review/refresh the contents.

Resolved: The Board noted the participation of Board members in the training activity set out in the report presented and reported at the meeting and that the Training Record would be updated accordingly.

Ms Brown, Governance Pensions Lead, presented a report on the Annual Workplan for the Board and the 2025/26 Training Plan which had been approved by Pension Fund Committee on the 7 March 2025.

The Chair informed the Board that the Workplan identified a number of key themes for the Board over the coming year, including improving the member experience, oversight of key metrics for Local Pensions Partnership Administration Ltd, breaches and cyber security.

Resolved: The Board noted the Annual Workplan, and the Training Plan 2025/26 as set out in the report presented.

The Head of Fund updated the Board in relation to the following items discussed at the last meeting:

Item 6 - The Pensions Team had made good progress on reviewing appeals, identifying some which could be closed, continuing to monitor others and would work with Local Pensions Partnership Administration Ltd (LPPA) to escalate appeals to employers where necessary.

Item 14 - The Pensions Team had received a report from LPPA on the specific breach reported at the last meeting and was reviewing the contents.

Item 15 – The key administration performance table in the administration update report now included the 6-month rolling average requested by the Board and metrics/governance were identified as areas of focus for the Board in the work plan approved by the Pension Fund Committee in March. In addition Ms Parker had liaised with the Managing Director at LPPA regarding communications and engagement activity.

Resolved: The Board agreed that the Minutes of the meeting on the 28 January 2025 are an accurate record and should be signed by the Chair.

The Chair declared a non-pecuniary interest as an Executive Director for another pension pooling company and a deferred member of another Fund in the Local Government Pension Scheme.

Ms Hunt, Technical & Administration Pensions Lead, presented a report on pension related regulatory issues including the Inter Valuation Contributions review, McCloud remedy and the English Devolution Bill, and answered questions from Board members.

Resolved: The Board noted the updates on various regulatory matters, as set out in the report presented.

Resolved: That the press and public 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, as indicated against the heading of each item. It is considered that in all the circumstances the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.

The Committee considered a report on the 2024/25 Work Plan which included activity that came under the remit of the Board together with specific activity set out in the 2025/26 Strategic Plan. Ms F Miller, the Chair of the Pension Board highlighted a number of key themes for the coming year, including improving the member experience, oversight of key metrics for LPPA and improved governance of the Board.

Resolved: The Committee approved the 2024/25 Work Plan for the Lancashire Local Pension Board, as set out in Appendix 'A' to the report presented.

The Head of Fund presented a detailed report from Local Pensions Partnership Investments Limited on responsible investment matters for Q3 of 2024 (1 October to 31 December 2024).

Resolved: The Committee noted the update on responsible investment activity during Q3 of 2024, as set out in the report presented.

County Councillor Schofield, as Chair of the Task and Finish Group, presented a report on the outcome of the review of the LCPF Responsible Investment Policy and the Groups consideration of preparations for the implementation of the Taskforce on Climate-related Financial Disclosures requirements.

Resolved: The Committee approved:

1.  the revised LCPF Responsible Investment Policy, as set out at Appendix 'B' to the report presented and

2.  the Implementation Plan for the activity required under the draft Taskforce on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) Regulations, as attached at Appendix 'C to the report presented.

The Head of Fund presented a report on the draft 2025/26 Training Plan which set out various training opportunities aimed at supporting members of the Committee and the Lancashire Local Pension Board to effectively fulfil the duties of their role.

Resolved: The Committee approved the 2025/26 Training Plan, as set out at Appendix 'A' to the report presented.

The Committee considered a report on pension related activity since the last meeting and Mr Neville, Senior Democratic Services Officer, reported that County Councillors E Pope, M Clifford, J Couperthwaite, C Edwards, A Gardiner and M Brown together with Co-opted members Councillor L Johnson, Mr P Crewe and Ms S Roylance had all participated in the 28 February 2025 workshop on the 2025/26 budget for the Local Pension Partnership Ltd.

Resolved: The Committee noted the 2024/25 Training Record and participation by Committee members at external/internal training events since the last meeting as set out in the report presented and reported at the meeting.

The Head of Fund presented a report on the outcome of a review of employer contributions for Further Education colleges, which recommended that they move to revised contribution rates following the introduction of a guarantee by the Department for Education in November 2024

Resolved: The Committee approved that Further Education colleges move to the Category 'A' contribution rate effective from the date of the Department for Education guarantee of 12 November 2024.

The Head of Fund presented a report on a one-year budget for the Fund for the year ending 31 March 2026.

Resolved: The Committee approved the Lancashire County Pension Fund budget for the year ended 31 March 2026, as set out at Appendix 'A' to the report presented.

The Head of Fund presented a report on the income and expenditure of the Lancashire County Pension Fund for the 9-month period up to 31 December 2024, together with forecast variances for the financial year ending 31 March 2025.

Resolved: The Committee noted the financial results for the 9 months up to 31 December 2024 and budget and forecast variances set out in the report presented

Mr S Basnett, Senior Manager at Grant Thornton, presented a report on the findings of the external audit of the Lancashire County Pension Fund annual accounts for the year ended 31 March 2024, as approved by the Audit Risk and Governance Committee on 27 January 2025.

Resolved: The Committee noted the findings and other issues raised by the external auditor in relation to the Lancashire County Pension Fund accounts 2023/24, as set out in Appendix 'A' of the report presented.

County Councillor J Couperthwaite declared a non-pecuniary interest in relation to item 20 on the agenda as he knew the proposed new Scheme Member representative for the Lancashire Local Pension Board.

Ms J Eastham declared a non-pecuniary interest regarding item 7 as she represented FE Colleges on the Committee that would be affected by the outcome of the inter valuation contributions review.

County Councillor G Dowding declared a non-pecuniary interest in the event that any pension related investment for the Eden Project Morecambe was discussed during the meeting as she was a member of Lancaster City Council.

County Councillor Edwards reported that he had sent his apologies for the last meeting.

Resolved: The Committee approved the Minutes of the meeting held on 6 December 2024.

A decision on the approval of a contract award for the procurement of bituminous emulsion.

Matt Townsend, Director of Highways and Transport, took the decision as set out in the report.

A decision on the approval of a contract award for the supply of asphalt to Tong Lane, Bacup.

Matt Townsend, Director of Highways and Transport, took the decision as set out in the report.

A decision on the extension to contract for the 'Provision of Site Security Services' for Council establishments.

Simon Lawrence, Director of Growth and Regeneration, took the decision as set out in the report

Due to a proposed Zebra Crossing point situated at the junction of Whalley Road and Corn Mill Yard, this proposal seeks to remove the existing Bus Stop Clearway on the east side of Whalley Road and relocate it further southwards.

Consultations

For Bus Stops - Formal consultation was carried out between 14 February 2025 until 14 March 2025 which included frontagers to the proposed location of the Bus Stop being notified and notices being displayed on site. Divisional county councillors were consulted along with the council's usual consultees.

Following formal consultation No Objections were received.

Following formal consultation 1 response was received. The main points raised in the response along with Officer comments are outlines in Appendix C.

Peter Bell, Highway Regulation Manager, on behalf of Matt Townsend, Director of Highways and Transport, took the decision to approve the relocation of the Bus Stop Clearway on Whalley Road, Clayton-le-Moors.

Following receipt of feedback after a formal consultation period carried out between 12 January 2024 and 09 February 2024, it is now intended to modify the proposed zebra crossing on Whalley Road by relocating to a more suitable location.

The purpose of the proposal is to provide safer road crossing facilities as a wider benefit for pedestrians who live to the north of the canal bridge and in conjunction with requests for a crossing at this location.

An informal consultation was carried out with the property frontages between the 18th December 2024 and 24th January 2025 which received no objections to the revised proposals.

Following consultation carried out between 12 January 2024 and 09 February 2024, it is now intended to modify the proposal as titled above, as set out below:

Remove the Original Zebra Crossing:

Introduce a zebra crossing in Whalley Road, Clayton-le-Moors, from a point 22.5 metres north of its junction with the centreline of Mill Entrance for a distance of 37.38 metres in a northerly direction.

Introduce a Modified Zebra Crossing Schedule:

Introduce a zebra crossing in Whalley Road, Clayton-le-Moors, from a point 7 metres north of its junction with the centreline of Corn Mill Yard for a distance of 37 metres in a southerly direction on the northbound carriageway and for a distance of 33 metres in a southerly direction on the southbound carriageway.

Formal modification consultation was carried out between 14 February 2025 until 14 March 2025 which included advertising in the local press and notices being displayed on site. Divisional county councillors were consulted along with the council's usual consultees and the consultation documents posted on the council's website.

Following formal consultation 5 responses were received. The main points raised in the responses along with Officer comments are outlines in Appendix C.

Please note, within the initial consultation that was carried out, an objection was received from the local MP. The engineer has since tried to contact the MP however, they are no longer in office.

Peter Bell, Highway Regulation Manager, on behalf of Matt Townsend, Director of Highways and transport, took the decision to approve the introduction of a modified zebra crossing in Whalley Road, Clayton-le-Moors.

A decision to award a clinical lead and training lead contract to Cardiovascular Specialist Services to enable these services to continue until 31 March 2028.

Paula Hawley-Evans, Consultant in Public Health, on behalf of Sakthi Karunanithi, Director of Public Health, took a decision to directly award the contract – Tem 18C 3 NHS Health Check Training April 2025.

A decision on the contract extension of Rem 18C 3 Crisis Support Payment Scheme – further 12 months from 01.06.2025.

Paula Hawley-Evans, Consultant in Public Health, on behalf of Sakthi Karunanithi, Director of Public Health, took a decision to extend the contract – Crisis Support Payment Scheme - for a further 12 months from 01.06.2025

A decision on the approval of the procurement of welfare cabins for the Accessible Nelson scheme from the Hired Plant Framework.

Matt Townsend, Director of Highways and Transport, took the decision as set out in the report.

A decision on the approval of a contract award for joint repairs to Lune West Bridge, Lancaster.

Matt Townsend, Director of Highways and Transport, took the decision as set out in the report.

A report was presented on an application for the erection of a portal framed building, in order to assist the processing and stockpiling of recycled soils at Newbridge Farm, Stopgate Lane, Simonswood.

The report included the views of the Health and Safety Executive, Simonswood Parish Council, the Lead Local Flood Authority, and LCC Highways Development Control. No comments had been received from West Lancashire Borough Council and no representations had been received.

Committee's attention was drawn to the Update Sheet which stated that one letter of support had been received from an adjacent resident.

The Head of Development Control Committee presented a Powerpoint presentation showing the location and site plan, aerial photograph, elevations, viewpoints from the south and photographs of Stopgate Lane.

Resolved: That planning permission be granted subject to conditions controlling time limits, working programme, building materials and hours of construction, as set out in the Committee report.

A report was presented on an application for approval of landscaping and ecological mitigation details required by Condition 35 of planning permission LCC/2023/0027 relating to the development of a new cricket facility at Woodcock Estate, Farington.

The report included the views of the LCC Ecology Service. As the application was for the approval of details, there was no formal consultation requirement. However, due to the proximity of several properties to the site, the adjacent residents were consulted on the proposed details. Two representations objecting to the application had been received, the details of which were set out in the Committee report. No comments had been received from South Ribble Borough Council.

The Head of Development Control presented a Powerpoint presentation showing a site location plan and overall view, landscaping proposals adjacent to Fowler Avenue, landscaping details on the southern edge and landscaping proposals for the entrance area.

Resolved: That the scheme of details submitted under Condition 35 of planning permission ref LCC/2023/0027 be approved.

A report was presented on a retrospective application for the change of use of land to the site at the Former Haulage Yard, Simonswood Industrial Park, Stopgate Lane, Simonswood, for the processing of inert waste to produce recycled aggregates. 

The report included the views of Knowsley Council, Simonswood Parish Council, the Lead Local Flood Authority, the Environment Agency and LCC Highways Development Control. No comments had been received from West Lancashire Borough Council. Two representations objecting to the application had been received, the details of which had been provided in the Committee report.

Committee's attention was drawn to the Update Sheet which contained details of West Lancashire Borough Council's objections and details of three further representations from Councillor Brennan, Councillor Wright and Councillor Rowe from Knowsley Council.

The Head of Development Control presented a Powerpoint presentation showing site location plans, aerial views and photographs of the view from the site entrance and view of the site.

Dale Milburn, Knowsley Council, addressed the Committee and said the following:

'I'm Dale Milburn, Knowsley's Executive Director for Regeneration & Economic Development, and I have responsibility for the Council's planning function. The application before you remains largely unchanged from the application you refused in October 2023. Consequently, my comments today largely remain unchanged from when I last addressed you, so apologies if you've heard this before. Members, I told you last time that Simonswood is no longer an industrial estate, it's more like a waste estate, and sadly that remains the case today. I know you're aware how bad the conditions are as you visited the site. The amount of waste being processed on the site significantly exceeds what your local plan allows and has been a total failure of regulation to the detriment of local residents. You agreed with me last time that it's not appropriate to continue to allow waste activities on an estate where significant problems and evidence that the infrastructure simply cannot cope with what is already there. You took an opportunity to draw a line under it rather than continue to make things worse. With this in mind, I will turn to the application itself, which I do not feel is capable of support, and I respectfully urge you to move an alternative motion to refuse the application as you did last time. I note your officers state that your local plan is time expired, which it is by some four years and therefore they assert its policies no longer carry much weight. I assume this is their argument to try and justify the proposal not being in a building which is required by your waste plan and why they are happy to allow a further waste processing at Simonswood, despite the estate already having over three times the amount of permitted waste it should have. I'm sorry Members, but that justification just does not hold water. To be clear, this proposal is contrary to policy WM4, which requires the processing to be in a building; one is not proposed. You clearly thought this was necessary last time and for consistency purposes, I'm sure you'll be of the same opinion this time. Access to the site is via the worst section of the estate road in terms of its condition and there is no certainty that the section of road will be improved, despite what the officer report says. There is an open boundary to the estate road which allows material to spill out, which it's clearly been doing and will probably continue to do even if planning conditions are imposed. I do not agree with or support the reference to need in the report, although I welcome its reference, given my insistence that it was required last time, albeit your officers guidance at that time was that it was irrelevant.
There still isn't space for a proper wheel cleaning facility on site, or at least sufficient space is not being given over to provide one. I can only assume that this is because it would reduce the space available for the storage of waste. Given the nature of the site, I'd say a wheel wash is an essential requirement and I think you agreed with me on this point last time. Members, this is not the right development for this site, despite the conditions recommended by your officers, the application is largely the same as the one you refused and I respectfully ask that you refuse it again.'

Councillor Tony Brennan, Knowsley Council, addressed the Committee and said the following:

'Good morning Chair, good morning, councillors. As stated in addition to me sitting on Knowsley's planning committee, I'm also deputy leader of Knowsley Council and also the Council's cabinet member for regeneration and Economic Development and therefore fully appreciate the constraints in which you make your decision on applications such as that before you this morning. That said, as planning Committee members, we must offer challenge to the advice offered by our officers. Especially if after balancing all of the facts, we come to a different judgment. Unsurprisingly, I was fully supportive of your decision to refuse permission the last time the committee considered a waste use on this site. I hope that we can still count on the support of councillors Berry, Clark, Cullens, Hindle, Holgate, Pattison, Pope, and Westley, who voted to refuse an almost identical application in October 2023. Councillor Westley, when you moved to refuse the last application, you said the industrial estate has been deteriorating for the last 15 years. You identified that the nature of the business means that it should be housed inside a building and that the use being conducted in the open air is partly responsible for the poor state of the road. You also identified that the use not being in the building meant it can't comply with policy. Councillor Holgate, you described the industrial estate as appalling and a cross between Sarajevo and Dodge City. You highlighted that the condition of the roads was disgraceful and that the failure to house the use in a building meant the application doesn't conform with policy and is not a sustainable development. You also said if they appealed your refusal, they could appeal, which might help draw attention to the appalling conditions of the estate. It will come as no surprise to you that I agree with you. There seems to me to be little change to the proposal since it was last considered, the use is still not housed in the building. The environment on the Simonswood Industrial Estate has also continued to deteriorate. I urge you to stand by your conviction too, and do the right thing and refuse the application. Thank you.'

Cllr Tommy Rowe, Knowsley Council, addressed the Committee and said the following:

'Thank you, Chair. Good morning Members and a Happy New Year to you all.
I, along with Councillors Wright and Brennan, live in and represent Shevington Ward. The ward immediately to the South of Simonswood Industrial Estate, the ward that takes the brunt of the issues caused by all the waste businesses operating on this estate. I previously addressed this Committee in relation to the previous planning application for this site in October 2023 and, prior to that, the application for the proposed medical waste incinerator. I was opposed to these applications and I remain completely opposed to this one. During my last visit to this Committee, I was delighted that the elected Members here are concerned, and decided to refuse planning permission for the application, against the advice of your officers, who recommended that the use should be given permission. You can imagine how disappointed I was when I learned that the same application had been resubmitted and that your officers again were recommending it for approval, despite the clear and unequivocal decision of this Committee to refuse it just 12 months ago. Since this time, nothing has changed on the estate. Sorry, I'll correct myself, nothing has improved on the estate; indeed, this has gotten far worse. With Kirby residents not only suffering from dust pollution, but now foul odours from the estate and, upon leaving the house this morning, this pungent odour was again very evident. When you considered the application, you refused planning permission because the use was not enclosed in a building as is required by policy WM4 in your local plan. You decided that this would lead to unacceptable impacts on the local environment, by the way of dust and noise pollution; Members, nothing has changed. The proposed use would still take place on an open site and no building is proposed to enclose the use. The officer report says there is limited potential for dust generation and that measures in a dust management plan have been submitted with the application which would control dust to acceptable levels. Despite what your officers say, there are no acceptable levels of dust, especially given that residents on Pingwood Lane and Shevingtons Lane are already suffering from dust pollution caused by HGVs from Simonswood Lane depositing and whipping up dust which settles on their properties. I therefore ask you to stand by your previous decision and refuse this application, as no attempt has been made to address your concerns from last time. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Members.'

Cllr Aimee Wright, Knowsley Council, addressed the Committee and said the following:

'Thank you Chair and thank you Members. Like Councillor Rowe, I was assured when you decided to refuse planning permission for this use the last time it was presented to you. Myself and Councillor Brennan sit on Knowsley's planning committee and we know how difficult it can be to go against the advice of your officers, but I urge you to do so once again. You know that this use has been operating without planning permission for a considerable time. Activity which, given the estate's condition, the lack of management and enforcement only compounds the problems being encountered by nearby residents. Members, you are well aware that the industrial estate already accommodates three times the amount of waste it should. Having regard to your own waste plan, how can you therefore simply approve more, yet here you are today being asked to do just that. Last time you decided to take a stand and by refusing the application, you were able to proactively reduce the amount of inert waste being handled on Simonswood Industrial Estate, which is already far too much; I urge you to do so again. Ultimately, it is only Lancashire County Council and you, as Members of its Development Control Committee, that can determine if this site is appropriate for waste processing.
You didn't think it was last time and agreed with us that if permission were to be granted, the use should be housed in a building, as required by your own local plan.
There is no building proposed as part of this application and therefore there is the same risk of unacceptable harm being caused to local residents as there was last time. On this basis, surely the only conclusion that can be reached is that what is being proposed should be refused. When you decided to refuse permission for this use in October 2023, you took an opportunity to go some way to addressing the awful conditions that this Committee has spoken about previously, sending a strong message to other businesses on the estate and to local residents that Lancashire County Council is serious about making things better in Simonswood. However, if you decide to approve this application today, you will effectively be accepting that Simonswood remains a dumping ground and will compound the adverse effects being experienced by our local community. Thank you.'

The Head of Development Control answered questions from Committee.

After a lengthy discussion, it was Proposed and Seconded that:

"The application be refused as the proposed development is not enclosed within a building, as required by policy WM4 of the Lancashire Minerals and Waste Local Plan – Development Management and Site Allocations Policies. Without enclosure within a building the development would have unacceptable impacts on the local environment by way of noise and dust, contrary to Policy DM2 of the Lancashire Minerals and Waste Local Plan – Development Management and Site Allocations Policies."

Upon being put to the Vote, the Motion was Carried.

Resolved: That planning permission be refused as the proposed development is not enclosed within a building, as required by policy WM4 of the Lancashire Minerals and Waste Local Plan – Development Management and Site Allocations Policies. Without enclosure within a building the development would have unacceptable impacts on the local environment by way of noise and dust, contrary to Policy DM2 of the Lancashire Minerals and Waste Local Plan – Development Management and Site Allocations Policies.

A report was presented on an amendment to Condition 6 of planning permission 8/10/0241, to allow approval of amended restoration contours together with the submission of a restoration and aftercare scheme to comply with Conditions 29 and 31 of planning permission 8/10/0241 at Round O Quarry, Cobbs Brow Lane, Lathom.

This application had been reported to the meetings of the Development Control Committee on 24 April 2024 and 17 July 2024. Committee had visited the site on 15 July 2024.

At the meeting of the Committee on 17 July 2024, a presentation had been received from an adjacent landowner raising various issues. Following discussion and debate, the Committee had resolved to defer consideration of the application, to allow a further drainage report to be submitted.  At the Committee meeting on 4 September 2024, the resolution had been amended to state that the drainage report should be an independent report.

The report included the views of LCC Lead Local Flood Authority and the LCC Drainage Engineer. No comments had been received from West Lancashire Borough Council, Newburgh Parish Council or the Environment Agency.

Committee's attention was drawn to the Update Sheet which included details of a further submission from Newburgh Parish Council enclosing photographs of the drainage issues at various locations around the site, which had been circulated to Members. In addition, the Update Sheet also included amendments to conditions 1a), 1b) and 2.

The Head of Development Control presented a Powerpoint presentation showing site location plans and an aerial view of the site, a plan showing permitted contours, current contours with amended restoration proposals, drainage proposals, a 1960s air photograph of the site and photographs of the views from Cobbs Brown Lane looking south and north, view over the site, view of the northern side of the site and view of the western boundary.

Councillor Katie Juckes, West Lancs Borough Council, addressed the Committee and said the following:

' I am borough councillor for this ward as well. UK Waste bragged in the late 1980s that it was to be the biggest domestic landfill site in the north of England. The residents of Newburgh, Dalton, Latham and the good people of Skelmersdale disagreed. This went to public inquiry and the Planning Inspector refused permission; residents were delighted. When proposals came forward for an inert site, they failed to realise the long term implications. You might find this hard to believe, but back then I was a young Bobby on the beat and this was my patch. That's the truth and nothing but the truth. The proposal today is all about water management, particularly along the western and northern edge of the site. The independent drainage consultant says there's no such continuous ditch. That's the truth. He says the applicant says that he has dug a ditch to catch all the water. That is not true. The landscape consultants say they've inspected the site, they repeat the statement about the new ditch. Did they not see there was no new ditch? Jonathan believes both statements, but has failed to check. He repeats for the third time a false statement. There is no new ditch. There is a recommendation to grant permission because they believe the new ditch will solve all the drainage problems. It will, but it doesn't exist, so it can't, and therefore you should not approve it until it's dug. Both the drainage and landscape consultants agree that the ditches, gullies and culverts are neglected or blocked. That's the truth. They both recommend sorting, but neither say by who. Neither do they say who will pay. You should not grant permissions until someone takes responsibility. Both consultants visited in August during dry weather, when undergrowth was dense. Their obligations were correct if they went now after wet weather in the winter, it's a different story. They would see the runoff into the fields. They would see the uneven bunds and water coming through the bunds across the roads, onto fields. This community has put up with problems from Round O for 35 years. No short five year management plan is good enough. There needs to be a long term plan to manage the aftercare of this site, otherwise the problems will recur. The applicant should use the extra revenue made by the old filter to cover this so that future generations don't have to put up with the mistakes of our generation.
We should tell the truth, not cover up. We should take responsibility and do the right thing and only grant permission when we know things are going to be right. First job, refuse and get the applicant to do what he says he's done. Dig the ditch, sort clearing the ditches, sort a long term plan then, and only then can we accept the recommendations of the drainage and landscape Consultants. Accept annual meetings, include the PC, then grant permission. Thank you.'

Councillor Mike Roughneen, Newburgh Parish Council, addressed the Committee and said the following:

' Hi, I'm Mike Roughneen, Chair of Newburgh Parish Council. The PC is pleased to acknowledge that Dr Hardwick's report is independent and we are generally supportive of his findings, conclusions and recommendations. Three issues need addressing; drainage, landscaping and bund slippage. The main concern is that Dr Hardwick says the applicant has stated that they have provided new drainage ditches along the toe of the perimeter bund on the western side of the site, which captures any water running off the site in that direction towards the surrounding farmland. Oakbay design consultants repeat the assertion, as does Jonathan and his report. This is simply not the case. There is no new ditch. Dr Hardwick explains that there's no continuous ditch and obviously no onward  connection to any drain in the northwest corner of the perimeter, and it is likely that run off either infiltrates to the fields or continues as surface runoff west towards Lowe's Farm. And we agree.
However, Oakbay design and Jonathan failed to pick up this contradiction. Dr Hardwick is clear, there is no obvious water courses or drain outlet. He also acknowledges ditches require maintenance to maximise flow and minimise the risk of surface water. Similarly, he recognises that roadside ditches and gullies need cleaning. I sent photographs to this Committee which shows torrents of water emerging from the western bund, down the existing ditches across farmland because of blocked gullies and culverts. If the ditch existed as Jonathan assumes, then the PC would accept the landscape plans as submitted by Oakbay Design. Oakbay make too many false assertions. There has never been any landscaping and you keep repeating information about the ditch that does not exist. They say the boundaries are being inspected but fail to admit the ditch wasn't there. They do, however, agree ditches are overgrown and need maintenance, but don't suggest who should pay or take responsibility for that work. Oakbay provides short term management objectives for a 5 year plan, but no medium or long term objectives for future care. We require some assurances that there will be plans and funds available for the future. We should not burden future generations of our village with cheap, fast fixes. Because of the overfill, there has been a huge uplift in revenue gained by the applicant. We believe that a fraction of those windfall funds should be made available as a bond for long term aftercare. We would support proposal of an annual visit, but request the PC take part. There have been so many broken promises over the years with no enforcement.
This will not happen again. Once the owner digs the ditch he says he's done, once the run off is managed, then the PC will withdraw its objections. We believe the Committee should not support this application until this is done.
Thank you.'

Martin Ainscough, local resident, addressed the Committee and said the following:

' Mr Chairman, thank you for allowing me to speak again. You all know my comments from last time, how much I object to leaving this towering flat plateau in its current state, and how disappointing it is that the conditions imposed by this Committee have been totally ignored. We've made some progress, but I do feel there is a lot more to be done before rubber stamping this overtipping. I very much appreciate this Committee's request for a hydrology assessment at the last meeting, and I commend Paul Hardwick's assessment of the site which highlights the lack of drainage ditches on the site and on the perimeter. It fails to discuss the destination of drainage from the east to a culvert destination unknown in figure 6 of the report, which may historically have followed the line of trees through the pre-quarried site. If you look at the black and white photo from the 1960s on page 106 of your reports pack, you will see a road and ditch network on the fields. That doesn't exist - there is no drainage plan for the site itself, it just relies on permeation. The water now floods the fields to the north. The lack of permeability data on the site has been picked up by your county drainage engineer is also really pertinent. The swales to the north, and particularly northwest of the site, are welcomed. But where does this water go?
It just permeates into the site and into the fields to the west. The recommendation for ditches on my own and my neighbours land requires some clarification. They do not exist at the moment on the north and west sides, just a few holes dug and the water has nowhere to go. Who's going to form these ditches and who's going to maintain them? The proposal doesn't match up with the hydrological survey. Your report from your team says that there is work on slope stability, there is not. The structural stability of the perimeter mounds which, after all, are made-up of the soil which should have been returned to the surface of the landfill and never engineered to retain millions of tonnes of inert waste, has definitely not been proved. Are you really going to rely on casual opinion of a paid consultant? It's disappointing there's been only limited interaction from the Environment Agency, it would appear that the landfill permit is still alive and, before surrender, the applicant will have to satisfy the EA on perimeter stability and water runoff. How will this impact the very detailed timings if you were to grant permission? Would it not make sense to wait for that technical assessment and surrender of the permit before granting this permission? Finally, I would like to ask a question whether you can really rely on conditions to ensure this costly restoration of the site and detailed 10 year management - every one of the conditions laid down on this permission have been ignored. There are 20 conditions laid down here - what makes you think the applicant is going to comply this time? I think it's absolutely essential that you get a financial bond put in place or enter a section 106 agreement to make sure that this very generous absolution of extremely profitable illegal activity is allowed. Thank you very much.'

Martin Lovelock, agent for the applicant, addressed the Committee and said the following:

' My name's Martin Lovelock. I am a consultant who worked on the application and have been involved in the site since 2021, at which time it was already closed. I'd like to comment on a number of issues. In terms of the site levels, the site is not visually intrusive, it's no higher at the highest point than it was under the permitted permission. There's some additional planting that has been proposed to fill the gaps around the perimeter to soften the impact. The landscaping scheme itself includes restoring the land to receive species of rich grasslands and wildflowers, removal of invasive weeds including Himalayan balsam, Japanese knotweed and dock, maintaining existing woodlands, periphery trees and other vegetation increasing native edge thicket and shrub planting belts and screen planting, maintaining and improving existing grasslands, creation of a pond, associated aquatic planting, wetland grass and reed species, provision of hibernacular mounds for wildlife and bird and bat boxes. In addition, at the county's request, hedges and hedgerow planting has been proposed along the historic lines, replicating the conditions at the site prior to quarrying. In terms of stability, I believe that the claims made are completely unfounded. There is no evidence whatsoever that the site is unstable or there is any instability along the perimeter. Beside, the perimeter bunds have been there for many years and it's my view as a geotechnical engineer, that stability is not an issue. Contamination - the landowner and permit holder undertakes routine quarterly environmental monitoring and there's no evidence whatsoever that the site's causing any contamination in the surrounding area. The Environment Agency agrees and has said so in their response. In terms of drainage, the picture at the top is not as a result of runoff from the landfill - this is a drain that takes water from underneath Cobbs Brow Lane, and the drain has simply become blocked with leaf litter that's been washed to the culvert that goes under Green Lane and blocks that – it is a maintenance issue. I walked the entire perimeter of the site yesterday - there is no evidence whatsoever of water running off the site. None of the photos provided on Monday show flooding in the fields around the site, despite the horrendous weather that befell West Lancs on New Year's Eve and New Year's Day - some of the heaviest rainfall on record. The existing ditches, and there are ditches on the southern boundary and on the western boundary, part of which is outside the boundary and part of which the northern section is inside the boundary wall, appear to have done their job.'

The Head of Development Control answered questions from Committee.

After a lengthy discussion, it was Proposed and Seconded that:

"The application be deferred to the next Committee meeting, pending further details being received on the swale feature and whether it provided adequate drainage, further detail being received on the management plan and confirmation of the Environment Agency's position".

Upon being put to the Vote, the Motion was Carried.

Resolved: That the application be deferred to the next Committee meeting, pending further details being received on the swale feature and whether it provided adequate drainage, further detail being received on the management plan and confirmation of the Environment Agency's position.

A report was presented on an application for quarry restoration at Dingle Quarry, Long Heys Lane, Dalton, WN8 7RF, by infilling with inert waste.

The report included the views of Dalton Parish Council, Up Holland Parish Council, Wrightington Parish Council, the Lead Local Flood Authority, LCC Ecology Service, the Environment Agency, Natural England, LCC Highways Development Control and LCC Public Rights of Way. No comments had been received from West Lancashire Borough Council. 199 representations objecting to the proposal had been received which had been summarised in the Committee report.

Committee's attention was drawn to the Update Sheet which stated that, although Committee had agreed to visit this site before considering the application, the site visit scheduled for Friday 10 January 2025 had had to be cancelled, due to the weather conditions. However, it was considered that the powerpoint presentation attached to the report contained sufficient visual information to allow members to understand the context of the site and its surroundings to make an informed decision on the proposal.

The Principal Planner presented a Powerpoint presentation showing the site location plan and aerial views, site levels and sections, and photographs of Lees Lane, Long Heys/Back Lane, the site entrance gate, cave/mine feature, quarry face, typical view into the site, trial pit, typical trial pit and excavated material.

County Councillor John Fillis addressed the Committee and said the following:

'Thank you Chair, and thank you Committee. Basically, when these heavy good vehicles come in or heavy truck vehicles come in, they'll be coming through my area, especially through Wrightington. Dalton is about 500 yards away from my area finishing. It's actually in Rob Bailey's area. Now the problems start here with the vehicle movement. It doesn't actually identify in these pictures, but Appley Lane South is at the top of a hill and it bends right into Lees Lane. This is surrounded by farm buildings, so these heavy good vehicles coming from the Wrightington area would cross the actual road and the road at the top narrows down and then curves around so you can't see the vehicles coming up, the vehicles coming up can't see you and so we're going to have these heavy vehicles trying to get across a very narrow road and being blocked by the sight of these farm buildings all around. We then get into Lees Lane; now it was identified in the report that a vehicle could get along there. But if you're looking to fill this quarry, you'll be having vehicles coming off and going on to Lees Lane at the same time, so they would basically block each other because the road is too narrow to take two of these vehicles at the same time. So we'd have some of these vehicles either trying to have a passing point or they would have to reverse backwards along Lees Lane. Now Lees Lane has been identified quite correctly by the officers - very narrow, a lot of blind bends and twists and turns. This would not only create a problem for the drivers, it would create a huge hazard for anybody else using vehicles along those roads. It would be totally dangerous to anybody trying to cycle down those roads because you tend to move away because there's no pavement when you're cycling down these roads, and when you walk and you do the same, you move away from the muddy edges because it's just a track really along there. And then when you turn into Hayes Lane then that just gets even worse. I went up there and I know you've been yourselves - one side of it, the road is actually gone, and it looks like a self built stream because you can actually put your hands underneath the road, it's that bad. So on DM2 alone, I fully support the officer's recommendation for refusal.'

Councillor Katie Juckes, West Lancs Borough Council, addressed the Committee and said the following:

'Good morning, everybody. I'm Katie Juckes, Ward councillor for West Lancs rural east. My ward is made-up of the parishes of Dalton, Newburgh, Parbold and Wrightington, which includes Appley Bridge. This application impacts on Dalton and Appley Bridge. All these parishes have historical links to quarrying, and in more recent years, many have had land filled. Within 2 miles of this site, there are 8 landfills, some infilled with domestic waste, while others filled within inert waste. This represents a considerable concentration of landfill on a relative small area and therefore a very negative cumulative impact on our communities. LCC failed to recognize this in their screening opinion, save for HGV movements. These landfills have all come with conditions, promises, but more importantly, problems. Consequently, residents have become well aware of potential impacts. This site has an unregulated chequered history that was stopped by intervention of the Planning Inspectorate many years ago. This application is to fill with inert waste against the advice of the Environment Agency. Therefore, the Environment Agency object. The applicant's claim no need for an environmental impact assessment. If this was true, then the Environment Agency would not be able to monitor. The Environment Agency has recommended dual tracking but this appears not to have been done. Why not? There are warning signs here for the communities that have plenty of experience regarding non compliance within the waste industry. Residents need to be reassured of Environment Agency involvement against the advice of LCC screening opinion. Since being abandoned over 40 years, the site has naturally regenerated. Thankfully, the LCC ecologist recognised the huge biodiversity value of the site. Considerable efforts have been made in this part of the Douglas Valley to encourage wildlife and plant life, and to landfill here would significantly harm that hard work. Apply Bridge already has huge concerns regarding numbers of HGVs; to landfill here would exacerbate the problem. The preferred route is along Appley Lane South turning into Lees Lane; this is a dangerous blind corner on a bank with farm buildings on two sides and two Grade II listed buildings on the other two corners. The road narrows past a residential nursing home before coming along the single winding track. After that, the road provides the only access between the two biggest farms in the Valley. LCC highways recognise this in their comments that Lees Lane is a country lane, but appears not to have taken on board the full, complex cumulative impact of a difficult two way access. Can you imagine a worse access scenario where busy farm machinery meet 18 waste HGVs – care home traffic, local residents all meeting on the single track or at the complicated junction? Please refuse'.

Susan Vickers, local resident, addressed the Committee and said the following:

'I am here representing my husband, Peter and I and the greater Dalton community. We live at Oak Cottage, which is at the junction of Lees Lane and Long Heys Lane, and our home and our lives will be directly impacted should you approve this application. Our home is just 95 metres from the proposed site and the resultant noise from this site from vehicles beeping, revving up as they try to ascend Long Heys Lane, plus the continual vibrations from them, together with the light pollution from security lighting and most importantly the dust that we would undoubtedly have to live with, would seriously impact our quality of life and may result in our inability to use our outdoor space during summer months. Had you had the opportunity to visit the site, you would have seen first hand the conditions of the roads surrounding it, starting with the dangerous corner that the HGVs would need to negotiate at the junction of Appley Lane South and Lees Lane. Long Heys Lane itself is a designated public footpath, and at its narrowest point is just 2.8 metres wide, clearly unsuitable for large HGVs. The country roads around us are a magnet for walkers, cyclists and wildlife watchers, and approving this application would clearly impact on the safety of those users. The site itself is a valley rich in biodiversity and is designated in the West Lancashire Plan as being a landscape of regional importance. It is a sanctuary for birds and wildlife, and particularly for the families of deer that find a haven there. The ecological damage to this site, should this be approved, will be devastating and a total destruction of an environmental biodiverse landscape. Your own LCC ecologist together with the Environment Agency opposes; I truly hope you will too. But finally, there is simply no need for the infilling of this landscape. You have recently approved the infilling of Raven Head Quarry, just some 3 miles down the road with a capacity of 1,000,000 cubic metres. Your own minerals and waste plan clearly states you have sufficient capacity to meet the future needs of Lancashire. I urge you to follow the advice of your planning officer in refusing this application and allowing my husband and I, together with the other 197 residents of Dalton, who oppose this, to continue to enjoy the peaceful environment in which we live. Thank you for listening to me.'

Geoffrey Ward, local resident, addressed the Committee and said the following:

'Good morning, we've lived at Cross House farm, not too far from the quarry for the last three years.
We've spent a considerable amount of time rewilding our lake, creating a wildlife haven. We've got kingfishers, we've got herons, we've got hares. I've even got an Otter taking a few fish out of the lake, but nevertheless what it's demonstrating is the streams of the Douglas that come into this area and into my lake are wonderful. You know, we walk past this quarry every day with our dog, it's just a fantastic wildlife haven and there's a document that I've come across, the West Lancs SPG natural areas and areas of landscape written by a guy called Steven Byron. When I look at that document and I think what the aspiration was, we've got there. To fill in this quarry would be an absolute disaster. I'll be honest, you got rock faces with owls, barn owls, you've got bats, there's stoats - it's just made. We've done it, we've got there and what's happened, that rewilding has happened on its own over time.
There's no way now we should be considering filling this in. Thank you.'

Eric Mclennan, local resident, addressed the Committee and said the following:

'Good morning, everyone, thank you for the opportunity to speak. I'm the nearest resident, I live at Tew Cottage. I have to say I didn't organise all the 199 objections. We of course, are going to be most affected by the noise, dust, smells, etc - I'll comment later if I have time. I made a detailed response on all aspects of the application which ran to 32 pages, I hope you've had the opportunity to review it.
If not, I believe all the other objectors are speaking on these matters. What I'd like to turn to is an enforcement notice of 1994 issued by Lancashire County Council for the making of a material change of use of the land, by using the land for the deposit of refuse or waste material without planning permission in the Greenbelt area special landscape, contrary to policies 14, 17, 106 of the Lancashire structure plan giving rise to the risk of pollution of surface underground waters and an unacceptable effect on the amenities of the locality. The owner is required to (1) stop the use of the land for the deposit of refuse or waste material (2) remove from the land all the refuse or waste material deposited thereon. The landowners appealed and a public inquiry held by written representations and a site visit by the Planning Inspector in January 1995. The Secretary of State issued a decision notice in March 1995. The inspector noted the site had been disused for some 20 years and naturally revegetated with a large number of semi matures and varied flora and fauna. He referred to policy 106 of the structure plan, in particular relating to landfill capacities available, traffic impact locally and wider, landscape impact, built environment impact, potential for pollution. He also commented upon the appellant's contention these were operational works to permit a future quarry, which he concluded was not the case and dismissed that part of the appeal. In respect of a deemed planning application, the inspector considered the developments contrary to Greenbelt policy. With regard to policy 106, he concluded there was no demonstrable need for this infilling, he recorded the areas unsuitable for traffic, there would be an adverse impact on the community, overall he concluded there were no material justifications and refused the appeal. He upheld Lancashire County's enforcement notice requiring the waste to be removed.
So some 30 years on, we find ourselves in the same position as before. The arguments and policies have not effectively changed. However, if the committee were now minded to approve this application, they would be going against their previous decisions in issuing an enforcement notice and more importantly, those of the Secretary of State for the Environment, which is an invidious position to put yourselves into. I believe the enforcement notice is still alive as the removal condition 2 has not been complied with. Therefore, the existing waste should be removed rather than any more waste deposited. In conclusion, I would ask you to refuse the application.'

After a discussion, it was:

Resolved:

That planning permission be refused for the following reason:

(i)  Site operations would be likely to have an unacceptable adverse impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents and the environment by virtue of noise, dust, general disturbance, and water pollution risk contrary to Policy DM2 of the Joint Lancashire Minerals and Waste Local Plan.

(ii)  The applicant has not clearly demonstrated the nature and extent of potential impacts on protected species, and site operations would be likely to have an unacceptable adverse impact on existing ecological interests at the site contrary to Policy DM2 of the Joint Lancashire Minerals and Waste Local Plan and Policy EN2 of the West Lancashire Local Plan.

(iii)  The movement of heavy goods vehicles to and from the site along Long Heys Lane and Lees Lane would be likely to cause unacceptable highway safety impacts on pedestrians, cyclists and other road users contrary to Policy DM2 of the Joint Lancashire Minerals and Waste Local Plan.

Resolved: That the minutes of the meeting held on 4 September 2024 be confirmed and signed by the Chair.

The Lancashire Combined County Authority approved the recommendation(s) as set out in the report.

A decision to approve the award of a single supplier contract for the provision of works at Bradford Bridge in Lancashire.

Matt Townsend, Director of Highways and Transport, took a decision to approve the award of a single supplier contract for the provision of works at Bradford Bridge in Lancashire.

Peter Bell, Highway Regulation Manager, on behalf of Matt Townsend, Director of Highways and Transport, took the decision to approve the proposal for no waiting at any time.

Proposal to put in a bus stop clearway to stop cars parking at the bus stop and to improve bus priority and reduce delays to bus services along Church Street. which has been put in order to reduce delays to service buses caused by passing and parked vehicles.

Consultations

For Bus Stops - Formal consultation was carried out between 21 March-2025 until 18 April-2025 which included frontagers to the proposed location of the Bus Stop being notified and notices being displayed on site. Divisional county councillors were consulted along with the council's usual consultees.

Following formal consultation No Objections were received.

Peter Bell, Highway Regulation Manager, on behalf of Matt Townsend, Director of Highways and Transport, took the decision to approve the proposed Bus Stop Clearway on Church Street, Preston.

Public realm improvements are being made to Castle Street in Clitheroe, which is the most important section of the existing high street conservation area. As part of the scheme, the footways are being widened and the carriageway on Castle Street is being narrowed to reduce the speed of vehicles using the road and reduce opportunities for illegal parking.

Additionally, the signing of routes is being revised to direct through traffic away from Castle Street onto other routes, with Castle Street being signed for local traffic only, and existing parking bays are being limited to loading and blue badge holders only. These measures are expected to significantly reduce the speed and amount of through traffic on Castle Street, aiding pedestrian movements throughout the length of Castle Street and removing the need for the existing zebra crossing at the north end of Castle Street.

As a result of the above measures, it is proposed to remove the existing zebra crossing and associated Belisha beacons and replace it with a courtesy crossing.

Consultations

Formal consultation was carried out between 27 June-2024 until 25 July-2024 which included advertising in the local press and notices being displayed on site. Divisional county councillors were consulted along with the council's usual consultees and the consultation documents posted on the council's website.

Following formal consultation No Objections were received.

Following formal consultation, two responses were received. The main points raised in the responses along with Officer comments are outlines in Appendix C.

It should be noted that works for the Zebra crossing are already complete on site.

Peter Bell, Highway Regulation Manager, on behalf of Matt Townsend, Director of Highways and Transport, took the decision to approve the proposed removal of the existing zebra crossing and associated Belisha beacons and replace it with a courtesy crossing.

The proposal seeks to create a safe and suitable set down/pick up location for passengers with wheel/pushchairs wishing to use public transport.

This proposal ensures that the area around the new bus stop clearway is free of parked vehicles that can cause issues with vehicle manoeuvres and make it more difficult for visually impaired passengers.

Bus Stop Clearway box markings will also prohibit unauthorised vehicles from parking within the stop.

It will also be of benefit to general road safety by improving driver's forward visibility along the road.

Consultations

For Bus Stops - Formal consultation was carried out between 14 March-2025 until 11 April-2025 which included frontagers to the proposed location of the Bus Stop being notified and notices being displayed on site. Divisional county councillors were consulted along with the council's usual consultees.

Following formal consultation No Objections were received.

Peter Bell, Highway Regulation Manager, on behalf of Matt Townsend, Director of Highways and Transport, took the decision to approve the proposed Bus Stop Clearway on Ribbleton Hall Drive, Preston.

The purpose of this proposal is to discourage inappropriate parking of vehicles that would impede bus access and egress.

The proposals also ensure effective enforcement can be undertaken where required. These proposals compliment the proposed bus stop clearway.

Consultations

Formal consultation was carried out between 14 March-2025 until 11 April-2025 which included advertising in the local press and notices being displayed on site.

Divisional county councillors were consulted along with the council's usual consultees and the consultation documents posted on the council's website.

Following formal consultation No Objections were received.

Peter Bell, Highway Regulation Manager, on behalf of Matt Townsend, Director of Highways and Transport, took the decision to approve the proposed Prohibition of Waiting on Savick Way, Preston.

The proposed Bus Stop Clearway is essential for bus operations, ensuring buses can stop safely and turn around without obstruction and allow passengers to board at the designated position.

To maintain smooth bus movements, parking is not permitted at any time and will allow easy entry and exit of buses.

Consultations

For Bus Stops - Formal consultation was carried out between 14 March-2025 until 11 April-2025 which included frontagers to the proposed location of the Bus Stop being notified and notices being displayed on site. Divisional county councillors were consulted along with the council's usual consultees.

Following formal consultation No Objections were received.

Peter Bell, Highway Regulation Manager, on behalf of Matt Townsend, Director of Highways and Transport, took the decision to approve the proposed Bus Stop Clearway at any time on Savick Way, Preston.

It is proposed to introduce a goods vehicle loading bay restriction on Caton Road, Lancaster, to ensure that delivery vehicles servicing the student accommodation at this location can carry out collections and deliveries throughout the day and night without causing obstructions on the highway network.

The proposal also seeks to amend the Traffic Regulation Order to match the existing road markings already historically in-situ, allowing for effective enforcement.

Consultations:

Formal consultation was carried out between 23 January 2025 and 20 February 2025 which included advertising in the local press and notices being displayed on site. Divisional county councillors were consulted along with the council's usual consultees and the consultation documents posted on the council's website.

Following formal consultation No Objections were received.

Peter Bell, Highway Regulation Manager, on behalf of Matt Townsend, Director of Highways and Transport, took the decision to approve the introduction of a goods vehicle loading bay restriction on Caton Road, Lancaster.

A decision on the provision of vehicle restraint systems repair, replacement, maintenance & inspection works based on Dayworks (Labour, Plant And Material) Rates.

John Davies, Head of Highway Network Management, on behalf of Matt Townsend, Director of Highways and Transport, took the decision as set out in the report.

Devolution of the Adult Skills Fund (ASF), previously the Adult Education Budget, forms a significant part of the Lancashire devolution deal. The Lancashire Combined County Authority (LCCA) is required to submit a letter from the CEO (or equivalent), a Strategic Skills Plan and progress against a number of readiness conditions to the Department for Education (DfE) by the 31 May 2025, to enable the secondary legislation to be laid to devolve funds from the 1 August 2026.

This paper provides an overview of progress to-date, including the final draft of the Lancashire Strategic Skills Plan for Adult Skills Fund for approval.

This is deemed to be a Key Decision and the requirements of the combined authorities Rules of Procedure (Section 5 – Access to Information Rules, 25. Key Decisions) have been complied with.

The Lancashire Combined County Authority approved the recommendation(s) as set out in the report.

A decision on the acquisition of a residential dwelling.

Gary Pearse, Head of Service Estates, on behalf of Simon Lawrence, Director of Growth and Regeneration, took the decision as set out in the report.

To allocate the Bus Service Improvement Plan Funding and Consolidated Active Travel Funding for 2025/26 and add both to the respective Revenue and Capital Budgets for the Lancashire Combined County Authority for 2025/26. 

To set the principle for any further grants to be announced in 2025/26 to be passported back to the constituent councils based on the allocations making up the total grant award. 

There have been recent grant award announcements from the Department of Transport (DfT) that will be payable to the Lancashire County Combined Authority in 2025/26.  These are Bus Service Improvement Programme (BSIP) and Combined Active Travel (CATF -previously known as Active Travel 5).  As the LCCA is in a transitional year in 2025/26 with some powers held concurrently with constituent authorities, it is proposed that the grants above are allocated back to the Upper Tier Constituent councils in the same proportion that the grant awards were issued by the Department of Transport.  It is also proposed that this sets the principle for other grants to be received from the Department of Transport in 2025/26 as they are announced to be similarly passported back to the constituent councils on the basis that the allocation is created. 

Whilst services delivering the revenue elements of the related services remain within each Upper Tier Constituent Council it is proposed that the whole amount of the revenue grant is passported back to the Upper Tier Authorities for this transitional year. 

There may be further grants from the Department of Transport for 2025/26.

This is deemed to be a Key Decision and the requirements of the combined authorities Rules of Procedure (Section 5 – Access to Information Rules, 25. Key Decisions) have been complied with.

The Lancashire Combined County Authority approved the recommendation(s) as set out in the report.

This report sets out the arrangements for the appointment of independent chairs of the Scrutiny Committee and the Audit and Governance Committee.

The Lancashire Combined County Authority approved the recommendation(s) as set out in the report.

This report seeks to approve the acceptance of the Rural Prosperity Funding (RPF) for 2025/26 of £653,065, add the amount to the LCCA capital programme for 2025/26 and to approve the passport to district councils in the same allocations as the government announced.  It is proposed that Blackpool council undertake the monitoring and reporting required as part of their UK Shared Prosperity Funding (UKSPF) remit and within the allocation already allowed. 

This is deemed to be a Key Decision and the requirements of the combined authorities Rules of Procedure (Section 5 – Access to Information Rules, 25. Key Decisions) have been complied with.

The Lancashire Combined County Authority approved the recommendation(s) as set out in the report.

A decision on the approval of a contract award for the provision of Vehicle Restraint Systems Repair, Replacement, Maintenance and Inspections works across various locations.

Matt Townsend, Director of Highways and Transport, took the decision as set out in the report.

To seek the agreement of the Lancashire Combined County Authority (LCCA) to the Authority’s admission to the Lancashire County Pension Fund on the basis of the Admission Agreement provided at Appendix 'A'.

To become an employing body of a similar status to other local authorities, the LCCA must offer prospective employees access to the Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS). This report seeks agreement from the LCCA for the Authority to have Admitted Body status to the Lancashire County Pension Fund.

The Lancashire Combined County Authority approved the recommendation(s) as set out in the report.

A decision to approve the award of a contract for the supple of asphalt to Grange Road, Fleetwood, FY7 5DD.

The Director of Highways and Transport took the decision to approve the award of the contract for the supply of asphalt to Grange Road, Fleetwood, FY7 5DD.

A decision to approve the award of a single supplier contract for Skew Bridge, Grimsargh – Bridge Widening Works.

Matt Townsend, Director of Highways and Transport, took the decision, which has been delegated to him in accordance with 9.52 (51) of the Council's Scheme of Delegation to Officers, to approve the establishment of a single supplier Contract for Skew Bridge (Grimsargh) – Bridge Widening Works.

Sean Greene, the Head of Pension Fund, on behalf of the Director of Finance and Commerce took the decision to  approve Mr P Crewe (Pension Fund Committee Co-opted member) and Mr S Dunstan (Lancashire Local Pension Board scheme member representative) to attend the PLSA Local Authority Conference on 16-18 June 2025 in Bedfordshire and the payment of any associated delegate fees, travel, or accommodation costs as appropriate by the Lancashire County Pension Fund.

A decision on the approval of a window replacement at Longton Primary School.

Sarah Robinson, Head of Service, Property, took the decision as set out in the report.

A decision on the approval of conducting a mini-competition procurement exercise for a replacement boiler at Ryelands Primary School.

Sarah Robinson, Head of Service, Property, took the decision as set out in the report.

A decision on the approval of external wall and roof repairs at Halton Branch Library.

Sarah Robinson, Head of Service, Property, took the decision as set out in the report.

A decision on the approval of conducting a mini-competition procurement exercise from Reactive and Planned Improvement Works for various schools.

Sarah Robinson, Head of Service, Property, took the decision as set out in the report.

A decision on the approval to award a call off contract from the Mechanical Design & Consultancy Framework for Summer Works 2025/26 at various schools.

Sarah Robinson, Head of Service, Property, took the decision as set out in the report.

A decision on the approval of a mini-competition for the supply of Asphalt to Grange Road Fleetwood FY7 5DD.

Matt Townsend, Director of Highways and Transport, took the decision as set out in the report.

A decision on the approval of a mini-competition for the supply of Asphalt to Tong Lane, Bacup OL13 9LH.

Matt Townsend, Director of Highways and Transport, took the decision as set out in the report.

A decision on contract variation with a supplier to include an additional Enterprise Coordinator.

Michele Lawty-Jones, Director, Lancashire Skills and Employment Hub, on behalf of Simon Lawrence, Director of Growth and Regeneration, took the decision as set out in the report.

Josh Mynott, Head of Democratic Services, on behalf of the Heloise MacAndrew, Director of Law and Governance, took a decision to approve:

1. The provision of ICT equipment to newly elected councillors, as set out in this report; and
2. The revised County Councillor Use of Resources Protocol as set out at Appendix 'A'.

The appointment of an Interim Director of Finance and Section 151 Officer.

The Chief Executive, following consultation with the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Urgency Committee, approved the recommendations as set out in the report.

A decision on a contract award to deliver a series of Skills Bootcamps to upskill a number of Lancashire residents in Procurement.

Simon Lawrence, Director of Growth and Regeneration, took the decision as set out in the report.

A  decision on the re-procurement has been completed for Wave 6 of the Skills Bootcamp Programme.

Simon Lawrence, Director of Growth and Regeneration, took the decision as set out in the report.