Council Meeting

COUNCIL MEETING

Wednesday, 6 December 2006 2.00 p.m. Morecambe Town Hall

Mark Cullinan Chief Executive Town Hall LANCASTER

Sir/Madam,

You are hereby summoned to attend a meeting of the Lancaster City Council to be held in the Town Hall, Morecambe on Wednesday, 6 December 2006 commencing at 2.00 p.m. for the following purposes:

1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

2. MINUTES

To receive as a correct record the Minutes of the Meetings of the City Council held on 27th September and 1st November 2006 (previously published).

3. ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS

4. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

5. ANNOUNCEMENTS

To receive any announcements which may be submitted by the Mayor or Chief Executive.

6. QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC UNDER COUNCIL PROCEDURE RULE 11

To receive questions in accordance with the provisions of Council Procedure Rules 11.1 and 11.3 which require members of the public to give at least 3 days’ notice in writing of questions to a Member of Cabinet or Committee Chairman.

7. QUESTIONS UNDER COUNCIL PROCEDURE RULE 12.2

To receive questions in accordance with the provisions of Council Procedure Rules 12.2 and 12.4 which require a Member to give at least 3 working days notice, in writing, of the question to the Chief Executive.

8. LEADER'S REPORT (Pages 1 - 4)

To receive the Cabinet Leader’s report on proceedings since the last ordinary meeting of Council.

REPORTS REFERRED FROM CABINET, COMMITTEES OR OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY

9. REPORT OF CIVIC TASK GROUP (Pages 5 - 64)

To consider the recommendations of the Overview & Scrutiny Committee at its meeting on 11th October 2006.

10. 2007/08 BUDGET AND POLICY FRAMEWORK UPDATE (Pages 65 - 70)

To consider the recommendations of Cabinet at its meetings on 10th October and14th November 2006 and the supplementary report of the Leader to be circulated as soon as possible following publication of the agenda, in relation to:

(a) Medium Term Financial Strategy (b) Corporate Plan 2007/08 – Cabinet Priorities (c) Review of Special Expenses

MOTIONS OF NOTICE

11. NOTICE OF MOTION - USE OF SCHOOL BUSES

To consider the following motion, notice of which has been received from Councillors Stuart Langhorn, John Day, Ian Clift, John Gilbert, Janie Kirkman, Joyce Pritchard and Pat Quinton:

‘This Council notes that as a result of Lancashire County Council doubling the fares for children using school buses;-

• There has been a reduction in the number of pupils using these services. • Children have been put at increased risk through greater use of unsafe pedestrian routes and by crossing busy main roads. • Displacement onto ordinary bus services means that some children are having to arrive at school well before the start of the school day and leave later than they would otherwise. • There has been a greater use of cars, adding to congestion on our roads, causing greater dangers and increased pollution. • Therefore, Council resolves:

To request that Lancashire County Council reverse their decision to increase school bus fares and urges them to increase bus use for journeys to school.’

12. NOTICE OF MOTION - TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES AROUND SCHOOLS

To consider the following motion proposed by Councillor Blakely and seconded by Councillor Smith :

‘This Council notes that due to the Extended Schools Agenda, schools are now open longer with children travelling to and from school outside the usual hours.

This Council believes that the traffic calming measures around schools in the district are inadequate. Lancaster City Council calls on Lancashire County Council to urgently review measures around schools and where possible, introduce 20mph speed limits and permanent traffic calming measures.’

13. NOTICE OF MOTION - CLIMATE CHANGE

To consider the following motion, notice of which has been received from Councillors Whitelegg, Chapman, Barry and Heath :

‘Council welcomes the publication of the report by Sir Nicolas Stern on the urgency of measures to combat climate change. Further it wishes to play a full and proportionate role in designing and delivering measures that will achieve the ambitions and expectations of both the Prime Minister and Sir Nicholas in combating climate change. Council also notes the Local Government Association's commitment to action at the local authority level to combat climate change. Council therefore requests the introduction of planning policy for the district such that:

Planning permission is not needed for the introduction of solar water heating systems and photo-voltaic cells.

Planning permission is not needed for the introduction of domestic wind turbines (up to 1.5 Kilowatts) in non-conservation areas.

Guidance is given as to the introduction of domestic wind turbines in conservation areas. However, Council would want such domestic wind turbines to be allowed if the guidance is followed.’

OTHER BUSINESS

14. PROMENADE BYELAWS (Pages 71 - 82)

To consider the report of the Chief Executive.

15. GAMBLING ACT 2005 - STATEMENT OF GAMBLING LICENSING POLICY (Pages 83 - 136)

To consider the report of the Head of Legal and Human Resources.

16. ALLOCATION OF SEATS TO POLITICAL GROUPS (Pages 137 - 142)

To consider the report of the Chief Executive.

17. ELECTION OF MAYOR

To elect the Mayor of the City of Lancaster for the ensuing year.

18. ELECTION OF CABINET MEMBER

A casual vacancy having arisen on Cabinet in accordance with Article 7.04(c) with effect from 1st December. The Cabinet will consist of the Leader together with up to nine other Councillors, all elected by the Council and will be considered to be properly constituted even if all the places are not taken up. The election of a new Cabinet Member shall follow the following process set out in Article 7.04 of the Constitution :

‘In the case of a casual vacancy arising during the year in a non-PR Cabinet, Members who are nominated, seconded and willing to accept nomination shall be voted upon individually commencing with those one or more up to the number of vacancies as are nominated before the start of the meeting by the Leader or potential Leader until vacancies for other Cabinet Members are filled or until no more nominations are made. Nominations shall be put forward as a package by the Leader, but voted upon individually, commencing with those nominated by the Leader, until all vacancies are filled and no more nominations are made. Should an individual not be elected, further nominations may be made by Councillors but not by the Leader.’

19. PUBLIC SPEAKING AT CABINET (Pages 143 - 148)

Report of the Monitoring Officer

20. APPOINTMENT TO OUTSIDE BODIES AND PARTNERSHIPS (Pages 149 - 152)

To consider the report of the Chief Executive.

21. URGENT BUSINESS REPORT (Pages 153 - 154)

To consider the report of the Chief Executive.

22. MINUTES OF CABINET (Pages 155 - 190)

To receive the Minutes of the meetings of Cabinet held on 10th and 24th October and 14th November 2006.

…………………………………………………. Chief Executive

Town Hall, LANCASTER, LA1 1PJ.

Published on Monday 27th November, 2006

Page 1 Agenda Item 8

COUNCIL

Leader’s Report 6th December 2006

Report of Leader of the Council

PURPOSE OF REPORT

To present the Leader’s report to Council.

This report is public.

RECOMMENDATIONS

To receive the report of the Leader of Council.

REPORT

1.0 General Matters of Interest

1.1 Meeting with Yvette Cooper, Minister for Housing

Members have seen that Yvette Cooper visited the West End and Poulton areas of Morecambe on 13th November at the invitation of Geraldine Smith MP to look at the housing regeneration programmes. Cabinet Members and Officers, the West End Partnership, the Housing Corporation, Adactus, and the NWDA were also present. We were able to provide her with an overview of the programme. We took the opportunity to raise two issues with her.

First, we were trying to bring together a number of funding streams with different criteria and time scales. This inevitably adds to the complexity of the project. It would be helped if Government could provide more flexibility and discretion to local partnerships. Secondly, the Housing Corporation’s unit cost rules were not well adapted to dealing with housing regeneration issues in seaside towns. The costs of acquiring a large HMO in poor condition, which nevertheless generated a large rental income, and the subsequent conversions are much higher than, say, acquiring and demolishing surplus terraced housing in other parts of the country. They are however treated in the same way.

1.2 Vision Board

Members will recall that the Council approved the Economic Vision, with some amendments, at its meeting in July. Since then, the Board has been working on a producing an Investment Plan with a number of projects derived from the Vision. It is

Page 2

intended to submit this to the NWDA in January. Essentially this is a funding bid for NWDA investment in the area over the next three year period.

1.3 Lancashire Locals

Members will be aware that Lancashire Locals have been meeting on a bimonthly basis for some time. It is fair to say that the first few meetings were largely scene setting, but I am pleased to report that at the last two meetings we have been able to have some modest influence on County Council programmes. Members have discussed the proposed changes at the Morecambe TIC and as a result the County agreed to withdraw its proposals for further consideration. We discussed a report on Children’s Centres, which resulted in a meeting with County Councillor Marcus Johnstone about the proposals in the West End. Most recently we discussed the use of surplus income from on street parking fees with a clear preference for spending on 20mph zones in the first instance. More generally the top priorities were road safety schemes including further 20 mph zones; residents parking; and promoting sustainable transport.

1.4 Local Government White Paper

The White Paper was published in October. Clearly there are a number of implications for this council as well as others. The Council is committed to making a bid for a unitary council on its present boundaries and work on this is going ahead and is being reported to the Local Governance Committee. There is a great deal to do before the deadline of 25th January.

However, the White Paper has many other themes to which we must respond. There is the challenge to introduce more neighbourhood management – making services work together better to meet the needs of localities. Allied to this is devolution of some decision making to localities. There is an enhanced role for councils in influencing other public service providers. Changes are also contemplated in the role of councillors as champions of their localities.

How this will be implemented in the promised Bill remains to be seen. However, there is no doubt in my mind that we should support all these changes and that unitary status will assist the implementation of all the others.

2.0 Cabinet

2.1 Storey

Members may recall that in my September report, I flagged up the forthcoming decision on the Storey Creative Industries Centre. This was discussed at the Cabinet meeting on 12th October and following a call in at the special meeting on 24th October. Although I cannot recall anyone in September pressing for leeway borrowing of £0.5 million to fund part of the shortfall if the Heritage Lottery Bid failed, this was the position of many members in October.

I am glad to say the eventual outcome is a better one for the Council and the Storey. Because another project did not go ahead we were able to divert £150k Lancaster SRB funding. This will be a grant, not a loan. We were also able to find £250k from revenue resources, partly from a predicted under spend in 2006/07 and partly from better than expected treasury management income. None of these three sources were Page 3

available at the time of the first Cabinet decision. Lastly we used £100k from the Industrial Aid Fund.

The result is that we can fund the shortfall without the Council having to enter into any additional borrowing.

This is still a challenging project that will have to deliver employment outcomes to justify the investments of the Arts Council and the ERDF.

2.2 Customer Service Centres

At its meeting on 10th October, Cabinet approved the latest stage of the Customer Service Centres. We hope by March to have commissioned work on walk in centres at both Morecambe and Lancaster Town Halls. This will greatly improve facilities for people visiting Morecambe Town Hall, in particular.

We anticipate that most enquiries will be by phone however. Following the successful implementation of the pilot phase, which involved waste and cleansing services operated by CC(D)S, work has started on Phase 1. There has been some rescheduling of the dates on which services are intended to migrate to the CSC but it is intended to complete Phase 1 by March.

BACKGROUND PAPERS

None.

Page 4

This page is intentionally left blank Page 5 Agenda Item 9

COUNCIL

Report of Civic Task Group 6th December 2006

Report of Overview and Scrutiny Committee

PURPOSE OF REPORT

This report contains the final report of the Civic Task Group.

It proposes a number of recommendations based on the Committee’s investigation that it would like the Council to adopt.

This report is public

1. RECOMMENDATIONS

1.1 That Council considers the work of the Civic Task Group and the adoption of the recommendations as set out in the attached report.

1.2 That Council considers the officer comments on the report.

2. OFFICER COMMENTS

Head of Democratic Services Comments:

Civic expenses have been the subject of an Internal Audit report, originally carried out in February 12005 and reviewed earlier this year. Amongst other things, this concluded that the aims and objectives of civic receptions and mayoral functions should be documented during the preparation process for each event thus enabling the success of the event to be measured and informing priority setting in future years. This action has not been fully implemented pending the results of the Task Group investigation so that views expressed regarding the aims and objectives of each event can be taken into account for future planning.

In some instances this may result in only minor changes to the format of a particular event, on other occasions the end result may be a complete change to the event.

Page 6

3. FURTHER INFORMATION

All details including consultation and conclusions are contained within the attached report.

RELATIONSHIP TO POLICY FRAMEWORK

The relationship to the policy framework is discussed in depth at Section 5.8 and 5.9 of the report.

CONCLUSION OF IMPACT ASSESSMENT (including Diversity, Human Rights, Community Safety, Sustainability etc)

These issues are dealt with in the report as and where they occur.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The 2006/07 budget for civic and mayoral expenses comprises the following:

£ Civic and mayoral functions 12,100 Printing and stationery 700 Floral decorations 2,300 Total 15,100

This budget is not divided into spend on particular events and each Mayor is consulted over the allocation of funds to events and hospitality during their year of office. Clearly estimated costs for each event are available and each year quotes are obtained and choices made to ensure value for money with the available budget.

There are no financial implications in respect of recommendations 1, 2 and 5. Without having undertaken any detailed costings it is anticipated that the remaining recommendations can for the most part be accommodated within existing budgets with some small possible savings providing funding for some new ideas.

An exception to this is Recommendation 3(i), which would require some investment to provide a successful event. It is unlikely that the Ceremonial and Members Officer could undertake this unaided and the expertise of Cultural Services (Festivals Organisers) and corporate Strategy (Communications and promotion) would be required. Should Members wish to pursue this proposal, a substantial amount of work will be required to investigate the available options and this piece of work will need to be included in the relevant Service Business Plans for 2007/08.

Similarly Recommendations 5(f), 6 and 7(k) may require involvement and assistance from Corporate Strategy to establish a Citizenship Panel and promote an awards programme. This too will require further investigation and should be the subject of a separate report in due course.

Finally there are likely to be substantial costs associated with Recommendation 8(c) to establish the post of Town Crier and this will require investigation and investment. There are 2 options available – to appoint a City Council Town Crier in which case the supply of robes and bell will be a one-off cost estimated at approximately £2,000 and there will be recurring costs for each event attended. Alternatively ‘free-lance’ Town Criers are available for hire but costs per event will be greater. Page 7

SECTION 151 OFFICER’S COMMENTS

The Section 151 Officer would advise that should Council be minded not support any of the recommendations that have financial implications, these would need to be addressed prior to taking a final decision. Furthermore the Section 151 Officer would advise that any such potential growth items should be considered alongside other budget proposals, in context of Members' priorities.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

For the most part the Council is free from legal constraints with regard to its civic programme although some of the proposals will require amendments to the Council’s Constitution.

Schedule 12 of the Local Government Act 1972 sets out the requirements for Councils to hold an Annual Council meeting. The proposals contained in the report in relation to Annual Council remain within the requirements of that Act.

The County of Lancashire Act 1984 sets out the criteria for the admission of Freemen. Officers have for some time been asking for the County Council to make amendments to this Act to allow women to be included but without success. Information has recently been obtained about a Private Peers Bill (the Borough Freedom (Family Succession) Bill) which seeks to amend Section 248 of the Local Government Act 1972 by removing such entry requirements to permit persons born outside the town or city and allowing the admission of women as “freemen”. Further investigation is required but it may be that this will provide an alternative and more successful route to bringing about the desired changes.

MONITORING OFFICER’S COMMENTS

The Monitoring Officer has been consulted and has no further comments.

BACKGROUND PAPERS Contact Officer: James Doble Telephone: 01524 582057 Working Papers of the Civic Task Group E-mail: [email protected]

Page 8

This page is intentionally left blank Page 9

Report of the

CIVIC TASK GROUP

- a report of Overview and Scrutiny

Lancaster City Council October 2006 Page 10

Contents Page

Foreword 3

(1) Introduction 4

(2) Summary and Recommendations 5

(3) Role of the Civic Task Group 11

(4) Status of this Report 14

(5) Context and Strategic Perspective 15

(6) Detailed Findings 20

(7) Conclusion 33

Appendix A: Spider Diagram: What is Civic? 34

Appendix B: Chief officers and Councillors on their views on the 35 understanding of Civic and what it encompasses

Appendix C: Questionnaire to Parish Councils and Community 39 Stakeholders on the Civic Programme

Appendix D: Questionnaire to selected senior officers 42 and Councillors

Appendix E: Description of Freeman and Freemans Court 45

Appendix F: Audit of all inactive charities, bequests and 47 endowments that the Council has responsibility for

2 Page 11

Foreword

What does Lancaster City Council mean to you? I am sure that there will be as many different answers as people reading this report. However, it is an important question to ask. How the council presents itself and what it stands for say a lot about the District and our vision for the future. As a very public face of the Council the Civic and ceremonial aspects of the council are key to this.

It is often the case that the first time that people meet the Council face - to- face is when they see the Mayor at an event they are attending. Many organisations continue to invite the Mayor to their functions - and value the contribution this can make. The public want the Council to be involved with the marking and commemorating important events in the community's life. Whether it be giving the regiment the freedom of the City or flying the flag for England during the World Cup - people expect the Council to have a visible presence.

The Civic Task Group was given the brief to look at the place of the Council's civic and ceremonial functions in the Twenty First Century; to consider how the centuries old traditions of the District can fit with the demands of a modern Council. Their recommendations are contained within this report. I would like to thank all those involved in working on the Task Group and commend its recommendations to you.

Councillor Stuart Langhorn Chairman Overview and Scrutiny Committee

3 Page 12

(1) Introduction

As a "new" councillor, it has been a privilege to be Chairman of the Civic Task Group. The members were charged with looking at all aspects of Civic life in the Lancaster City Council district and to make recommendations which would make it more relevant to the 21st Century. It was important to create a Civic Programme which would involve as much of the community as possible. I feel that the recommendations of the Task Group have gone a long way to achieving this.

Councillor Susan Bray Chairman Civic Task Group

4 Page 13

(2) Summary of Recommendations

This report aims to, revise and rejuvenate the current civic programme, building on the strengths of tradition but looking to the future. The Civic programme is important to the Council and most importantly the community, which we serve. However it is our conclusion that over the years the programme has become disconnected from the work of the Council, despite real and strong connections existing. This report offers an opportunity to reconnect these elements and use the civic programme to further the objectives of the district.

Recommendation 1 a) That the Mayor produce a review of the year report to be submitted to Council at their last meeting of the municipal year. b) That it be included in the terms of grant funding from the authority, that organisations who are grant funded should where appropriate issue an invitation to the Mayor to attend events.

Recommendation 2

That Council adopt the Strategic Vision for the Mayoralty and Civic events as set out above.

Recommendation 3

Mayor Making

a) That Mayor Making become a weekend long, community orientated event, with Annual Council taking place on a Friday.

Annual Council

b) That invitations for the gallery be issued to the Civic Society, community groups, organisations and different faith groups.

c) That Schools be encouraged and invited to attend Annual Council and upon arrival be welcomed by a Council officer, informed about what they are going to see, the history of the Mayor, the local authority and how this fits with citizenship.

d) That Annual Council include the presentation of badges/ certificates of service to outgoing Councillors (after two full terms) who have stood down or not been re-elected.

e) That a local school choir or orchestra (preferably within the Mayors ward) should be invited to perform, during the interlude when the Mayor is robed and that all those present be invited to join the Mayor for a reception, at the rear of the Ashton Hall.

f) That each year the Mayor elect should decide on whether to hold a formal meal, informal buffet or other alternative on Annual Council Day and that they should consider whether to invite:

• Or other civic guests g) That Councillors should in future pay for their guest’s ticket to the meal and Chief Officers should pay for their partner’s ticket, unless they choose to bring a member of staff in recognition of service. h) That alcohol continue to be served at Annual Council, but that the amount of alcohol be limited in quantity to a glass of wine per course (or equivalent), and in the case of the toast a small glass of port or brandy (or equivalent).

Mayor’s Day (Community Festival) i) That consideration be given to holding a Mayor’s Day Community Festival and Parade on the Saturday of Mayor making as set out in paragraph 6.1.5 of the report.

Mayor’s Sunday j) That on Mayor’s Sunday Members will meet at the Priory and lead the Mayor in to the church and the Mayor would lead them out, (instead of the parade which would now take place on the Saturday). That in addition other Lancashire Mayors be invited to attend. k) That a multi faith ecumenical service be introduced led by the Priory with support from representatives from other faiths in the district invited to take part and participate, with the traditional theme of asking for spiritual guidance for the Mayor and Council in the forthcoming year.

Mayor’s At Home l) That an additional Mayor At Home be held in the Mayor’s Ward.

Mayoral Selection m) That in future a Councillor should not be offered a second term of office until all other Councillors had been offered an opportunity to be Mayor. After an all out election, a list in order of seniority should be calculated, with all those who have not previously been Mayor taking precedence. n) That the Deputy Mayor should no longer be chosen by the Mayor, but should be the Councillor who is next in line for the Mayoralty and should succeed in becoming Mayor the following year.

Recommendation 4

Remembrance Sunday a) That the Mother/Father of the Council attend the Carnforth Remembrance Service.

Freeman’s Court b) That the criteria for Freemen be amended to include the admission of women as Freeman and the extension of the geographical boundary to include the whole area of the district. c) That the Freeman’s oath be revised to include the following elements of the Respect agenda:

¾ Promoting respect, leading by example.

6 Page 15

¾ Promoting respect in the community. ¾ Showing tolerance, acceptance, and common decency to those around us – our family, friends and peers, [eople who are older or younger, people from different walks of life or who follow different cultures or religions. ¾ Being considerate of the consequences of our behaviour to others. ¾ Reporting unacceptable behaviour.

Overseas Students Reception d) That the reception be extended to be an invite to all first year students, with a drink on arrival and the possibility of a bar to purchase further drinks. e) That sponsorship for the event be investigated. f) That the event include stalls and representatives from Council departments and the opportunity to sign up for a free Town Hall tour at a later date and the possibility of discounts from local attractions be explored.

Reception For Parish Councils g) That this event be run in conjunction with the Lancashire Association of Town and Parish Councils (LAPTC), with information and representatives from all Council departments, County Councillors and MP’s

Visit By Civic Heads Of Lancashire h) That Lancaster City Council begin discussions with the other Lancashire authorities aimed at reducing these events, so that visits to each authority take place every other year, reducing the number to 6 visits per year. i) That further work be undertaken to broaden out the scope of such visits through the Lancashire Chief Executives Meetings to enable a programme to be developed to disseminate best practice and innovation between authorities. j) That a display board be provided for the Mayor to display information obtained from visiting other Lancashire Councils.

Citizenship Awards k) That an award scheme be set up consisting of:

The Mayor’s Award -for those individuals or groups who go out of their way to help others and their community. and The Mayor’s Special Award - for those individuals who have made an outstanding contribution to help others and their community beyond that which is expected of citizens. l) That nominations be made in conjunction with the local media, with the decision to award made by the Mayor and Citizenship Panel with certificates presented at a special reception at the Town Hall.

Other Recommendations m) That the where the Mayor is already committed to an event the Deputy Mayor and Deputy Mayoress be permitted to attended functions allowing greater access to the Civic elements of the Council. n) That the Festivals and events and Civic programmes be amalgamated in to one programme. 7 Page 16

Recommendation 5

Publicity a) That posters be distributed to Parish Councils for display on Parish notice boards detailing information on Civic events. b) That the possibility of using the Citizen in addition to the Guardian or Visitor, for publication of Mayoral events’ details, be investigated in light of its circulation. c) That officers be congratulated on the development of the civic and ceremonial pages of the website and that the future development of the site be welcomed, including clearer linking to the Council Homepage. d) That Officers considering using the Council owned lamppost posters to advertise Civic events. e) That Mayoral engagements be advertised on the Town Hall notice boards and in Group Rooms as well as being sent to Group Administrators. f) That the Citizenship Awards be run in conjunction with ‘The Visitor’ newspaper. g) That offer from ‘The Visitor’ to include a monthly calendar of Civic events be welcomed. h) That each political party be encouraged to have a Civic Champion to encourage support for civic events.

Recommendation 6

That a Civic and Citizenship Panel made up of interested Councillors, Honorary appointments, dignitaries and community representatives be established by the Council to support the Mayoralty in undertake the following: -

• Promote citizenship through organising visits to schools, clubs etc. • Assist with the organisation of Local Democracy Week. • Assist with the preparations for the centenary celebrations in 2009. • Run the Citizenship awards. • Promote the Mayors Charity and assist the Mayor with fund raising events. • Assist in the organisation of Mayor Making and Civic events • Assist with the developing the Civic role.

Recommendation 7 a) That an honorary post of Mother/Father of the Council be created, with a suitable badge of office. b) That the post be held by the Councillor with the longest unbroken service with Lancaster City Council. c) That the Mother/Father of the Council be appointed at the first meeting of Council following the post becoming vacant. 8 Page 17

d) That the Mother/Father of the Council have the following duties :

• To be present at civic and ceremonial occasions. • To move motions of a civic and ceremonial nature. • To provide evidence for the Council when historical information is required. • To contribute to debates when a historical perspective may be required. • To propose votes of thanks as appropriate. • To make the loyal toast and other toasts as appropriate. • To be a member of the Citizenship Panel • To be present if the Council agrees to present a congratulatory address or receive a dignitary. • To attend the Carnforth Remembrance Day Service

Recommendation 8

Member Awareness a) That the Ceremonial and Members’ Officer give a presentation as part of the Member induction process to remind Councillors of the history of civic events and the Mayoralty and its contribution towards the objectives of the Council in line with the agreed vision.

Procurement b) That consideration be given to the use of local suppliers local florists for instance floral displays at Annual Council and local breweries where beer is served as opposed to internal provision or traditional procurement.

Town Crier c) That the Council re-establish the office of Town Crier and recruit to this post through a public competition.

Other recommendations d) That the introduction of a ‘handing over’ meeting between the outgoing Mayor and the new Mayor be supported. e) That the Mayor’s charity be linked in with and supported by the Council’s charity programme. f) That all items of civic insignia be catalogued and further investigation take place of how these could be displayed and stored.

9 Page 18

Recommendation 9

Twinning a) That the Council encourage local organisations such as the Brownies, Scouts, sports groups etc to be in contact with their twinned town counterpart. b) That the Council strengthen links with the local Chinese community. c) That a link be included on the Council’s website to the websites of the district’s twinned towns. d) That further business links be encouraged with Lancaster’s Twin towns.

10 Page 19

(3) The role of the Civic Task Group

3.1 Terms of Reference

1. To review the current and past civic events programmes (including but not limited to Annual Council, Mayors Sunday, Remembrance Day, Freedom parades, twinning and mayoralty, Freemen) and undertake a cost/ benefit analysis and value assessment.

2. To establish a Vision for the Civic events programme for Lancaster City Council.

3. To create a civic programme based on the vision.

3.2 Membership of the Task Group

The Group comprised of Councillors Susan Bray (Chairman), Evelyn Archer, Shirley Burns, Shelia Denwood, John Gilbert, John Harrison, Janet Horner, Janie Kirkman and Catriona Stamp.

Councillor Janet Horner, a member of the Task Group, sadly passed away on 23rd April 2006 the Task Group would like to place on record their thanks for her contribution and enduring support for the Civic function of the Council.

The Task Group wish to place on record their thanks for the Officer support provided by Jenny Kay, Democratic Support Officer, assisted by James Doble Principal Democratic Support officer.

The Group gratefully acknowledges the contributions and assistance given by:

¾ Civic Society ¾ Gill Haigh – Communications Manager ¾ Mark Cullinan – Chief Executive ¾ Roger Muckle – Corporate Director (Finance and Performance) ¾ Gill Noall – Head of Democratic Services ¾ Lisa Jackson - Ceremonial and Members’ Officer ¾ Ian Barker – Leader of Council

11 Page 20

¾ Glen Cooper – Editor of The Visitor ¾ Sue Riley – Editor of The Guardian ¾ David Owen – Head of Cultural Services ¾ Local Parish Councils ¾ ‘Civic and Ceremonial’ by Paul Millward ¾ Former Mayors

Robert Carr Arthur Briggs Hilda Shuttleworth

John Lodge Abbott Bryning Sybil Rostron

Former Mayors and Members of the Task Group, who had in their time been Mayor of the District, were asked to give their thoughts on the main differences between their year as Mayor and the Civic Programme today. Their comments and suggestions have where appropriate been included in the report and their assistance is acknowledged.

12 Page 21

3.3 Timetable of Meetings

Date of Who gave evidence? Issues Scrutinised Meeting

03/11/05 Head of Democratic Services Terms of Reference and Work Corporate Director (Finance and Programme Performance) Evidence from Officers

06/12/05 Former Mayors and Members of Task The Mayoralty in the past Group What has been lost How the Civic Programme could be improved

02/02/06 Ceremonial and Members’ Officer Appointment of Honorary Recorder Review of Current Civic Events Qualitative Assessment of Civic Events Review if Civic Events by Internal Audit Civic information on Council’s Website

22/02/06 Members Blue Skies Visioning Session

21/03/06 Communications Manager Engaging the Local Press Chairman Report back on Meetings with Key Democratic Support Officer Individuals Beacon Councils Development of Twinning Arrangements

19/04/06 Civic Society Views of Civic Society Chairman Evidence from Head of Cultural Democratic Support Officer Services Principal Democratic Support Officer Possibility of Charity Involvement in Civic Programme

27/04/06 Principal Democratic Support Officer Vision for Civic Programme Democratic Support Officer

22/09/06 - Consideration of Draft Report

13 Page 22

(4) Status of this Report

This report is the work of the Civic Task Group, on behalf of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, and where opinions are expressed they are not necessarily those of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee or Lancaster City Council.

Whilst we have sought to draw on this review to make recommendations and suggestions that are helpful to the Council, our work has been designed solely for the purpose of discharging our work in accordance with the terms of reference agreed by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee. Accordingly, our work cannot be relied upon to identify every area of strength, weakness or opportunity for improvement.

This report is addressed to Lancaster City Council. It has been prepared for the sole use of the Council and the Task Group takes no responsibility for any Member or Officer acting in their individual capacities or to other third parties acting on it.

14 Page 23

(5) Context and Strategic Perspective

What is the Civic life of the Council? What value does it have and what is its connection with the 21st century? These are the questions, which the Task Group set out to answer in our investigation. The Task Group would like to make clear form the outset that ‘civic’ is an emotive issue and creates strong responses from those who are asked about it. Whether the response is that‘ it costs too much, is irrelevant and archaic’ or ‘ it is an important tradition and we must preserve these traditions as its all we’ve got left’. The Task Group has not approached the issue from either of these stand points but from the position of neutrality and in our work we have tried to approach the issue from the position of interested impartial observers to objectively try to understand and evaluate Civic, its costs and benefits and to consider how and if this contributes to the work of a 21st Century Council and what if any role it should have.

5.1 What is Civic?

Civic – pertaining to a city or citizen; relating to civil affairs.

Citizen – one who has full municipal and political privileges.

(Shorter Oxford English Dictionary)

The Task Group began its work by trying to define Civic and what it entails. The Task Group did this through carrying out a ‘Thought Shower’. The diagram in Appendix A indicates what the Task Group felt Civic includes. The Group also carried out extensive consultations with Chief officers and Councillors on their views on the understanding of Civic and what it encompasses (Appendix B), a questionnaire to Parish Councils and Community Stakeholders on the Civic Programme (Appendix C) and selected senior officers and Councillors (Appendix D), which have been incorporated in this report.

The Task Group felt that the Civic function of the Council had in some way become disconnected with the way and the environment the Council operates that in turn had led to budget cuts to the Civic functions of the Council. Also that the Council as a whole had become more disconnected from the community since 1974, as evidenced by the choice of the title of the 1998 Government White Paper, ‘Modern Local Government: In touch with the People’. The Task Group also note that until 1974 the use of the word ‘Corporation’ to describe a local authority symbolised that the community was part of the Council with the Mayor as the first citizen speaking for the incorporated. The Task Group aimed to re-evaluate Civic in terms of the historic basis of Civic life of the Council, to understand the reasons for its existence and to consider its fits with today.

5.2 Mayoralty

In talking about Civic it is virtually impossible to avoid discussion regarding the Mayor. The Mayor is at the centre of the Council’s Civic life and therefore this analysis begins with Mayor, its origins and raison d’etre. Other elements of Civic are dealt with in Section 6 of this report.

Morecambe has had a Mayor from at least 1902 and Lancaster since 1338. The origins of Mayors appear to date from the 12th Century, when they took the role of ‘custodian of the peace’ presiding over civil and criminal courts and ‘First Citizen’ elected by their peers, with a Council to help them govern. In the seventeenth century this role had expanded to include; Chairman of Council, Town Clerk, Coroner, Clerk to the markets, appointing officers and appointing freemen. In the 19th Century this had further expanded to:

• A constitutional monarch for the city

• A speaker for the Council

• A kind of Prime Minister

15 Page 24

Whilst today the role has changed many of these functions of the Mayor still continue.

In his book ‘Civic Ceremonial’, Paul Millward sets out three main important roles for the Mayor:

• As a symbol of the authority

As evidenced by the Mace that precedes the Mayor, a symbol used as authority for decision making across the country, the Chains of office and the fact they Chair full Council, the body that sets the Budget and Policy Framework and has the democratic mandate.

• As a symbol of an open society and equality

The Mayor is selected regardless of class, education, background, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation and is a symbol of equality. The Mayor is a freely elected Councillor, who has been chosen by the public, chosen by their peers and elected under a system of universal suffrage through fair and free election. A fact which has become lost over time and taken for granted, but not taken for granted in countries where there is no democracy.

• As an expression of Social Cohesion

Through attending community events the Mayor helps to bring cohesion to the life of the district, linking between different organisations and also picking up on concerns and issues as well as taking the Council’s message and objectives in to the community and working towards achieving the social, community, educational and economic aims of the Council.

5.3 A Lancaster City Council Perspective

The Mayor is the first citizen of the district. This is strong in that the Mayor as an elected Councillor has a democratic mandate, i.e they have been democratically elected by the citizens of the district, appointed based on seniority and elected to office by their peers. It is from this role as the first citizen of the district that the Mayor derives their authority and respect. It is the view of the Task Group that this authority and respect exists and is very much in evidence, for instance the way that the Mayor is treated by Councillors at full Council.

Each year the Mayor attends approximately 307 engagements, holds 30 receptions and receives hundreds of guests, which for some is seen as a great honour and the highlight of their visit to the district. Why then should something which is seen by some as an anathema continue to receive such public interest, so many requests for attendance and to be seen as an honour? It is difficult if not impossible to quantify the positive publicity and benefit this brings to the Council and the positive effect on the Community; however the Council does not make the most of this benefit and has failed to use this asset to its full potential.

5.4 The Legal and Policy Framework

The Task Group considered the way in which the Civic life of the Council fits within the overall functioning of the authority. The Group considered the origins and development of mayoralty, Civic and ceremonial events, comparing their original purpose and what relevance they have for a Council in 2006 and the national context.

The Task Group considered several national initiatives and believes that the Civic function of the Council make a significant contribution towards achievement in these areas as set out below:

5.5 Citizenship

Since the turn of the Millennium there has been a growing concentration on citizenship by the government. Citizenship has been included in the National Curriculum for Schools and citizenship ceremonies are held for those wanting to become British citizens. The aim of Citizenship is to 16 Page 25

educate people about their rights, responsibilities, government and democracy and communities and identity. It aims to explain what being a citizen involves, why it is important for individuals and society and the importance of being involved and part of society. In short citizenship aims to help people:

• Understand how their and other people’s attitudes can undermine or enhance the quality of life for individuals and Communities.

• Be involved in contributing to the wider community, both nationally and internationally and acquire skills to enable participation in society at all levels.

• Gain knowledge about political ideas, people, processes and institutions and how they can make a difference.

The Task Group believe that through the civic offices and events the Council can make a significant contribution to fulfilling this agenda both with young people and the wider community. The Mayor as first citizen can and should act as a champion for citizenship, which in turn provides a framework and sound basis for the continuation and enhancement of this ancient office.

5.6 Respect

Respect is a government led initiative that aims to promote respect in our society. It’s aims are:

• about nurturing and, where needed, enforcing a modern culture of respect, which the majority of people want.

• about showing tolerance, acceptance, and common decency towards the people around us – our family, friends, and peers, people who are older or younger than us, people from different walks of life or who follow different cultures or religions.

• about being considerate of the consequences of our behaviour for others.

The Task Group believe that there is once again a very strong relationship with the objectives of Respect and the Mayoralty. In particular the Task Group believe that the Mayor, proposed Citizenship Awards and the creation of Freeman can help towards the objective in the Respect action plan of strengthening communities. As in the case of citizenship it seems appropriate that through the offices of Mayor this agenda is championed and that those who have made a significant contribution towards its objectives in the district are recognised by a Mayor’s award.

5.7 Community Leadership

Under the Local Government Act 2000 the Council was charged with the duty of community leadership. Community Leadership is an important role for the Council and enables the Council to take a much wider view and to consider matters and issues where the Council has no statutory powers or responsibility, but has an interest in its elected role on behalf of the district in showing leadership and direction.

This role is never clearer than at a time of celebration, commemoration or sadness.

In these situations the public look to the Council to take a lead or act as a focal point, often through the offices of the Mayor as the first citizen. Examples of this role are set out below:

• Books of condolence – Queen Mother

• Focal point for public grief – Diana Princess of Wales

17 Page 26

• Commemoration – 11th September, Remembrance Day and London Bombings

• Flag Flying – World Cup

The Task Group also considered ‘Civic’ in terms of the Community Strategy and Corporate Plan. Once again the Task group is of the view that there are strong links between the Civic function of the Council and both of these strategies and that through furthering enhancing and continuing the Civic functions of the Council contributions can be made to the achievement of these targets.

5.8 Community Strategy

The Community Strategy agreed by the Local Strategic Partnership creates a shared vision for the district for the year 2020. There are five key principles of the Community Strategy they are:

• Equity • Accessibility • Participation • Inclusivity • Reducing Health Inequalities

The Task Group believe that the first four principles of the community strategy are principles, which underpin the modern mayoralty and civic events and are in line with the community leadership role already identified for the Mayor. The Task Group believe that these are principles which the Mayor should actively support and where possible lend their support to the Local Strategic Partnership (LSP) in support of these objectives, particularly through giving patronage to events and launches held by partners on the LSP in support of these principles.

5.9 Corporate Plan

The Corporate Plan sets out the Council priorities for the year. It is a document that is agreed by full Council and as such is a corporate policy owned by the whole council. The Corporate Plan sets out a number of priorities:

• To deliver value for money. • To make our district a cleaner and healthier place. • To reduce crime and the fear of crime. • To lead the regeneration of our district. • To support sustainable communities. • To continue to improve the Council.

It is the belief of the Task Group that the Mayor as the representative of the Council has a role in supporting all these priorities and should through the choice of events they attend support these priorities and carry out engagements in support of them.

The Task Group further believes that this relevance has always existed but over the years the Civic life of the Council has become detached from the political and community leadership roles the Council has.

The Task Group supported the principle that each year the Mayor should produce a report as a review of the year demonstrating where the Mayor has visited and added value to the work of the Council. In particular it was felt that there would be particular value in analysing Mayoral visits in terms of their support to the Corporate Plan, similar to the analysis used in the Overview and Scrutiny Annual Report. The Task Group are of the view that visits which have a clear and definite link in supporting an objective of the Corporate Plan should be viewed as a priority, if there are two engagements on a day.

18 Page 27

Additionally the Task Group felt that the Mayor should be invited as a matter of course to organisations where the Councillor provides funding in terms of grant or revenue funding. The Task Group believe that this provides a very public way of demonstrating the Council support for a project or organisation and of informing the public of Council support.

Therefore in conclusion the Task Group believes that the there is a very real role for the Council and in particular the Civic elements of the Council in promoting Respect, Citizenship, Democracy, as ‘first citizen’ and as a focal point for the community (community leadership role). However for the Council and the Mayor to be successful in this role there needs to be a shared understanding of this role both in the Council and the community as well as a much greater emphasis on putting the Council at the heart as opposed to the perimeter of the community and achieving community engagement and involvement in all aspects of the Civic life of the Council.

It is the Task Groups firm belief that if the Civic life of the Council occurs within a vacuum, behind closed doors there is little or no value. The value of the civic events and offices is through ensuring that such events interact and involve the community and it is through this that the community leadership role can be fulfilled.

5.9 Strategic Vision

The Task Group have developed the following Strategic Vision for the Mayoralty and Civic events, which it proposes for adoption.

¾ The Mayor is the first citizen of the district and within the Council first among equals.

¾ The Mayor is a non-political symbol of the local authority, a symbol of open society and equality and an expression of social cohesion.

¾ The Mayoralty should be recognised by the Council as a focal point for the community at times of celebration, commemoration and sadness.

¾ The Mayoralty and Civic events should be outward looking, inclusive and should be aimed at putting the Council at the heart of the community.

¾ The Mayoralty and Civic elements of the Council provide continuity for the district in linking past, present and future.

¾ Civic events and in particular the Mayoralty should be focussed at uniting and developing our community, it’s spirit and it’s identity.

¾ The Mayoralty and Civic events should support the Community Strategy, Corporate Plan and in particular provide focus and motivation for the Council’s contribution to Citizenship and the Respect agenda.

Recommendation 2

That Council adopt the Strategic Vision for the Mayoralty and Civic events as set out above.

19 Page 28

(6) Detailed Findings

The following findings should be considered in the strategic context and vision as set out in the previous section of this report. The following recommendations set out positive actions the Council can take in order to further that strategic vision.

6.1 Mayor Making

The Task Group gathered evidence from a wide variety of stakeholders including past Mayors, members of the community, local groups and Councillors to ascertain their views on the current Mayor Making process.

6.1.1 Annual Council

Mayor Making is the annual event where the Council formally elects and inducts the new Mayor, Deputy Mayor and has traditionally appointed to positions and Committees. It is an event which has been in existence since the Mayoralty itself although over the years the day on which it is held and the elements of the event have changed.

Today the event consists of the election of the Mayor and Deputy Mayor, speeches by the proposers, seconders, retiring Mayor, presentation of past Mayors badges and the appointment of honorary officers such as Mayors Sergeant, Town Sergeant and Honorary Recorder. The event ends with a wine reception followed by a formal three-course meal, wine, port and brandy with toasts and speeches. Councillors and guests, Chief Officers and guest (normally a member of staff in recognition of service), representatives of Trade Unions, partner agencies, local dignitaries, and guests of the Mayor. Only the ceremony is open to the public, where local schools are also invited to attend. Attendances by Councillors are high but very few public attend.

6.1.2 Mayor’s Sunday

Mayor’s Sunday is an historic event, which most likely originally took place on the day of Annual Council. Over the years this has changed to the first Sunday after Annual Council. Today the Priory is the venue, however this has not always been the case and was held at the Church of St John the Evangelist, built in 1755 partly at the expense of the Corporation of the City of Lancaster, the Town Council had its own dedicated pew. The Church was used for all Civic ceremonies from 1863 – 1873. The church closed in 1981 and is now maintained by the Churches Conservation Trust. The Ceremony today involves a parade from the Town Hall to the Priory with a band and representatives from local organisations, Police and the military affiliated to the Council. The Councillors lead the Mayor to church, escorted by the Mayor’s and Town’s Sergeant (carrying Mace’s) and Mace Bearer and the Mayor leads them back where there is a small reception. Attendances by both Councillors and the public are low.

6.1.3 Mayoral at Homes

Traditionally the Mayor would have entertained their peers and invited guests to their residence to entertain them. Today the event takes place in the week after Annual Council at Morecambe (The Platform has been the venue since the Committee Rooms at Morecambe Town Hall have been out of service) and Lancaster Town Hall. The public are invited take meet their Mayor and take cream tea with them. The events vary in attendance from year to year but in the last two years attendances have been good around 120 people at each event.

As would be expected from such a consultation a wide and varied response was received. The over riding feeling that emerged was that Mayor Making is important but that the current process had lost touch with its original purpose and lost touch with the community, appeared dated, was inward as opposed to outward looking and did not engage the public.

20 Page 29

It was felt that consideration should be given to Mayor Making becoming a weekend celebration and festival of events beginning with Annual Council on the Friday morning, making it easier for the attendance of guests who are travelling to the event.

6.1.4 Annual Council

The Task Group considered Annual Council and believed that the current ceremony and process was relevant. However the group believed that there needed to be greater community involvement. It was suggested that whilst Members of the public were free to attend, invitations should be issued to community groups, organisations and different faith groups to sit in the gallery. Schools should be encouraged and invited to attend and when they arrive they should be welcomed by a Council officer who will talk to the group and outline to them what they are going to see, the history of the Mayor, the local authority and how this fits with citizenship. Additionally the Task Group suggest that during the interlude where the Mayor and the Past Mayors change robes, a local school choir or orchestra (preferably within the Mayors ward) should be invited to perform. All those present should then be invited to join the Mayor for a reception, at the rear of the Ashton Hall.

It was felt by many people interviewed that the sit down formal meal after Mayor Making was in its current format self-centred and inward looking with a very limited guest list. The Task Group feel that one alternative is an informal hot or cold buffet which would allow the Mayor, Councillors and guests to circulate the room and speak to people. This would also allow for the event to be opened up and a more varied guest list such as:

a) Newly appointed Freemen. b) Mayors Award winners. c) Councillors who had stood down or not been re-elected in the past year. d) Members of staff (in recognition of service). e) The public – a certain amount of tickets could be allocated to be won by local people via a competition run in the local press or ballot upon allocation

This would also allow the Mayor to have greater flexibility for instance a Mayor may want to serve local produce, Lancashire Hot Pot, food of different ethnic origins or locally produced drinks and beer. The Task Group believes that variation is good and that this decision should be made by the incoming Mayor on an annual basis.

It was agreed that regardless of any other change Councillors should in future pay for their guest’s ticket to the meal. It was also agreed that Chief Officers should pay for their partner’s ticket, unless they chose to bring a member of staff in recognition of service. Additionally there was support for the continuation of alcohol to be served at this event, but that the amount of alcohol should in future be limited in quantity to a glass of wine per course (or equivalent), and in the case of the toast a small glass of port or brandy (or equivalent).

6.1.5 Mayor’s Day (Community Festival)

As a matter of principle and in pursuit of the vision for Civic affairs the Task Group felt that the Mayoral programme should be community orientated. The concept of a Community festival came forward in the visioning session that took place and has been welcomed by those who were consulted.

At this early stage the Task Group envisage a carnival procession on the Saturday replacing the Mayor’s Sunday parade but maintaining the tradition with floats, local organisations e.g. Scouts Brownies etc, bands – a similar to the carnival parades that used to take place in Morecambe and Lancaster. Such an event would require joint planning by Cultural Services with input form Democratic Services and consideration should be given to financially supporting this event through the realignment of an existing festival Such a procession takes place in Norwich where 21 Page 30

the Lord Mayor’s procession attracts thousands of people, for the procession, fair, festival, events and fireworks that take place. The Task Group would have to involve local businesses to make it work both from an economical point of view but also to be inclusive.

This parade could begin at Lancaster or Morecambe Town Hall and parade through the city or town ending at a suitable location for instance Dalton Square, Priory Fields, Ryelands, Williamson Park, Promenade or Happy Mount Park where there would be stalls, entertainment and funfair etc.

6.1.6 Mayor’s Sunday

As set out above, the procession that currently takes place on Mayor’s Sunday would be replaced by the parade on the Saturday as part of the Community Festival. On Mayor’s Sunday the Members present will meet at the Priory and lead the Mayor in to the church and the Mayor would lead them out. It is suggested that a multi faith ecumenical service be introduced led by the Priory with support from representatives from other faiths in the district invited to take part and participate, with the traditional theme of asking for spiritual guidance for the Mayor and Council in the forthcoming year. Similar services have been held in St Paul’s Cathedral for national events.

6.1.7 Mayor’s At Home

The Task Group originally considered taking Annual Council to the local community where the Mayor lived. Although this could work well in some places of the District, logistically it would be difficult and as a formal Council meeting would require certain formal arrangements etc. However the Task Group believe that the Mayor’s local community should benefit from and be able to celebrate their Ward Councillor becoming Mayor and it was suggested that a possibility would be for a Mayoral At Home to take place in their community.

It is suggested that this should take place instead of the Lancaster At Home, which would be replaced by opening up the reception after Annual Council to the public. The At Home in Morecambe would still take place.

6.1.8 Mayoral Selection

The Task Group considered the current process for choosing the Mayor and supported the principle of seniority; however there was concern that a Councillor who had been Mayor could have a second term of office in a relatively short space of time. The Task Group felt that it would be fairer, if a Councillor should not be offered a second term of office until all other Councillors had been offered an opportunity to be Mayor. After an all out election, a list in order of seniority should be calculated, with all those who have not previously been Mayor taking precedence.

The Task Group were also aware from the evidence they received that the Mayor had many duties and for some Councillors this posed a very steep learning curve. Therefore the Task Group propose that the Deputy Mayor should no longer be chosen by the Mayor, but should be the Councillor who is next in line for the Mayoralty and should succeed in becoming Mayor the following year. This would give the Deputy Mayor time to become accustomed to their role before their year as Mayor.

Recommendation 3

Mayor Making

a) That Mayor Making become a weekend long, community orientated event, with Annual Council taking place on a Friday.

Annual Council

22 Page 31

b) That invitations for the gallery be issued to the Civic Society, community groups, organisations and different faith groups.

d) That Annual Council include the presentation of badges/ certificates of service to outgoing Councillors (after two full terms) who have stood down or not been re-elected.

f) That each year the Mayor elect should decide on whether to hold a formal meal, informal buffet or other alternative on Annual Council Day and that they should consider whether to invite:

• Newly appointed Freemen. • Citizenship Award winners. • Councillors who had stood down or not been re-elected in the past year. • Members of staff (in recognition of service). • The public – a certain amount of tickets could be allocated to be won by local people via a competition run in the local press or ballot upon allocation. • Or other civic guests g) That Councillors should in future pay for their guest’s ticket to the meal and Chief Officers should pay for their partner’s ticket, unless they choose to bring a member of staff in recognition of service. h) That alcohol continue to be served at Annual Council, but that the amount of alcohol be limited in quantity to a glass of wine per course (or equivalent), and in the case of the toast a small glass of port or brandy (or equivalent).

Mayor’s Day (Community Festival) i) That consideration be given to holding a Mayor’s Day Community Festival and Parade on the Saturday of Mayor making as set out in paragraph 6.1.5 of the report.

Mayor’s At Home l) That an additional Mayor At Home be held in the Mayor’s Ward.

Mayoral Selection m) That in future a Councillor should not be offered a second term of office until all other

23 Page 32

Councillors had been offered an opportunity to be Mayor. After an all out election, a list in order of seniority should be calculated, with all those who have not previously been Mayor taking precedence. n) That the Deputy Mayor should no longer be chosen by the Mayor, but should be the Councillor who is next in line for the Mayoralty and should succeed in becoming Mayor the following year.

6.2 Other Annual Events

The Task Group considered other civic events that took place throughout the year. Each event was reviewed in terms of what took place and whether there was any room for improvement based on the vision for Civic events.

6.2.1 Remembrance Sunday

The Task Group were of the view that Remembrance Sunday was a very important event for the community and for the Council. Members were advised that whilst there were services of remembrance taking place across the district, Lancaster City Council formally attended three services at Lancaster, Morecambe and Carnforth. Whilst the Mayor and the Deputy Mayor attended the first two respectively it was felt that it would be fitting if there could be a Civic presence at Carnforth and it was suggested that the Mother/ Father of the Council should attend.

6.2.2 Freeman’s Court

The Task Group considered Freeman’s Court. A description of this historic office is set out in Appendix E. The Task Group believe that becoming a Freeman is an important tradition that should be continued, however the majority of the Task Group would support a number of revisions being made to the current criteria. In particular the admission of women as Freeman and the extension of the geographical boundary to include the area of the district. The Task Group also believe that there is a strong synergy between the principles of the Freeman’s pledge and the issues as set out in the government’s Respect agenda. The Task Group consider that the oath taken by Freemen supports the Respect agenda and would suggest that in advertising for Freemen each year, the principles of the Respect agenda are used and that it would be possible for the oath to be amended to include the following principles.

¾ Promoting respect, leading by example. ¾ Promoting respect in the community. ¾ Showing tolerance, acceptance, and common decency to those around us – our family, friends and peers, People who are older or younger, people from different walks of life or who follow different cultures or religions. ¾ Being considerate of the consequences of our behaviour to others. ¾ Reporting unacceptable behaviour.

Whilst it might be possible to include this event as part of Annual Council, the Task Group believe there may be merit in continuing it as rejuvenated separate event. It is recommended that the Citizenship Panel should consider this issue and the detailed wording of the oath in light if this suggested inclusion. It should be noted that changes to the rules surrounding Freemen would require amendments to the Lancashire Act, 1984.

6.2.3 Overseas Student’s Reception

The Overseas Student’s Reception provides a good opportunity for the Council to welcome overseas students to the district. The Task Group were aware of the importance of students to the City both in terms of representing a large number of residents in the district and the economic incentives that they bring to the area. The Task Group felt that the current reception should be amended and extended to be an invite to all first year students, with a drink on arrival and the

24 Page 33

possibility of a bar to purchase further drinks. It is suggested that this event would be an excellent opportunity for sponsorship from a local brewery or/and nightclub, which could hold a night for students following the reception. The event should include stalls and representatives from Council departments and it is suggested that students should be given the opportunity to sign up for a free Town Hall tour at a later date and the possibility of discounts from local attractions should be explored.

6.2.4 Reception for Parish Councils

The Task Group support the continuation of this event but believe it should be run in conjunction with the Lancashire Association of Town and Parish Councils (LAPTC), with information and representatives from all Council departments, County Councillors and MP’s

6.2.5 Visiting Civic Heads of Lancashire

Each year each local authority in the area invites the Mayors from the other Lancashire local authorities to visit their district for lunch and a tour. There are 12 such visits each year. Across the county there is a cost to these events, however potentially they could provide benefits for the authorities involved. The Task Group propose that in order to reduce costs Lancaster City Council should begin discussions with the other Lancashire authorities aimed at reducing these events, so that visits to each authority take place every other year, reducing the number to 6 visits per year. This would mean that greater planning could go in to each event and a budgetary saving would be achieved. The Task Group would also like to see further work undertaken to broaden out the scope of such visits. For instance when the Prime Minister makes an official visit to a country, other Ministers accompany them to hold discussions with their counterparts. It is suggested that through the Lancashire Chief Executives Meetings work could be undertaken to enable a programme to be developed to disseminate best practice and innovation.

Additionally the Task Group supported the Mayor having a display board to display information obtained from visiting other Lancashire Councils.

6.2.6 Citizenship Awards

In pursuit of Citizenship and the Respect agenda the Task Group would support the establishment of annual citizenship awards to be presented by the Mayor at Annual Council or a special ceremony. It is suggested that the awards should be given for those individuals or groups who go out of their way to help others and their community. Similar award schemes are in operation at Lancashire County Council, Bridgend County Borough Council, London Borough of Brent and Dublin City Council. The Task Group would suggest that that there should be two types of award:

The Mayor’s Award: For those individuals or groups who go out of their way to help others and their community.

The Mayor’s Special Award: For those individuals who have made an outstanding contribution to help others and their community beyond that which is expected of citizens.

It is suggested that nominations would take place in conjunction with the local media, with the decision to award made by the Mayor and Citizenship Panel and certificates would be presented at a special reception at the Town Hall.

6.2.7 Festivals and Events

The Task Group would support the integration of the Civic and Festivals and Events programme. The Task group believe that it is important that Civic events should be seen as festivals and events for the entire district and that when a festival or event takes place in the district the Mayor should be present.

25 Page 34

Recommendation 4

Remembrance Sunday a) That the Mother/Father of the Council attend the Carnforth Remembrance Service.

¾ Promoting respect, leading by example. ¾ Promoting respect in the community. ¾ Showing tolerance, acceptance, and common decency to those around us – our family, friends and peers, [eople who are older or younger, people from different walks of life or who follow different cultures or religions. ¾ Being considerate of the consequences of our behaviour to others. ¾ Reporting unacceptable behaviour.

Citizenship Awards k) That an award scheme be set up consisting of:

26 Page 35

6.3 Publicity

The Task Group sent a number of questionnaires out to local groups and Parish Councils and feedback indicated that increased publicity of the Civic Programme would be welcomed. Members invited the Communications Manager to one of its meetings to discuss how publicity could be improved upon. The Task Group were pleased to see the developments with regard to the civic and ceremonial pages on the Council website, which are now some of the best in the country. The Task Group look forward to their continued future development and congratulate the officers concerned.

The Chairman and Democratic Support Officer held meetings with the editors of The Visitor and Guardian to request their thoughts on how the profile of civic events could be raised.

The newspapers were particularly interested in the suggestion of Citizenship Awards with the Editor of the Visitor offering to run the awards through the paper. An offer to include a monthly mayoral calendar was also made by the Visitor, which the Task Group supported.

One Parish Councillor who gave evidence to the Group suggested it would be useful if the Mayor’s Office sent details of civic events that could then be displayed on Parish Council notice boards. The Task Group also felt these should be displayed on Town Hall notice boards and in political group rooms. Each political group could also be encouraged to have a Councillor to rally support to attend civic functions including Mayor’s Sunday, fund raising events and other civic events.

The Task Group also requested that consideration be given to advertising civic events on the Council’s lampposts display boards if this is considered to be cost effective.

The Task Group were aware of the volume of very positive publicity which the Mayor attracts for the Council and local organisations. It is unusual not to find at least one picture or article each week in the local newspapers and on most weeks four or five. This is not only very positive in showing an active and supportive Council but also gives the opportunity for the Mayor to use their coverage to further promote corporate initiatives as well as the Respect and citizenship agendas.

27 Page 36

Recommendation 5

6.4 Civic and Citizenship Panel

The Task Group felt that an important function of the mayoralty is to promote citizenship and the Respect agenda within the district, particularly within schools. To assist the Mayor in this task, it is suggested that a group should be established to help promote citizenship by visiting schools and clubs in the district. This group would also assist in the development of Local Democracy Week, run the Citizenship awards and assist in organising civic events as well as developing the Civic role.

With the centenary of Lancaster Town Hall only three years away, the Citizenship Panel could also help develop plans for the celebrations in 2009.

Recommendation 6

28 Page 37

6.5 Honorary Mother/Father of the Council

In recent years, Councillor Janet Horner was often referred to as the ‘Mother of the Council’ in view of her holding the position of the Councillor with the longest period of unbroken service.

The tradition was based on the practice of the House of Commons where the MP with the longest unbroken service is appointed. It is currently held by Rt Hon Alan Williams MP and his predecessors include; Tam Dalyell, Sir Edward Heath and Sir James Callaghan.

Duties of the Father of the House include:

¾ Move or speak on motions of a ceremonial nature. ¾ Debates where historical precedents are required as evidence. ¾ Debates where an historical perspective maybe required. ¾ If the House agrees a resolution to present a congratulatory address, they may well be made part of the group appointed to ‘wait upon’ the person concerned.

Additionally the Father of the House has presided over the election of the Speaker and since 1945, the Father of the House has generally been a member of the Select Committee on Privileges, the equivalent to the Standards Committee.

The Task Group felt that the title of ‘Mother/ Father of the Council’ should be confirmed as an honorary position. This position would see the Councillor with the longest unbroken service become the Mother or Father of Lancaster City Council with duties attached to the position such as proposing toasts, being present at all civic and ceremonial occasions etc. This post would be held by the Councillor until the post became vacant when it would be re-appointed at the next Council meeting.

29 Page 38

6.6 Other Recommendations

6.6.1 Member Awareness

Members of the Task Group suggested that it would be beneficial for the Ceremonial and Members’ Officer to give a presentation as part of the Member induction process following election to remind Councillors of the history of civic events and the Mayoralty and its contribution towards the objectives of the Council in line with the agreed vision.

6.6.2 Procurement

The Task Group felt that it was important that Civic events and the Mayoralty should provide value for money and at the same time promote the local economy, showcase local products and businesses wherever possible. Therefore Officers should continue to consider the use of local businesses for instance local florists for floral displays at Annual Council, local breweries where beer is served as opposed to internal provision or traditional procurement.

6.6.3 Town Crier

During their investigation the Task Group received certain strength of feeling that the Council should appoint an honorary Town Crier. The Task Group felt that this should be through a competition open to any resident of the district and judged by the Mayor. Since the Task Group received this evidence it is their understanding at a recent event in the City Centre, the services of the Town Crier from Kendal were obtained and his presence created public interest, including an expression of interest from a prominent local businessman. It is believed that there may be support from the Chamber of Trade and Commerce for this proposal and if this is the case, the Task Group would suggest that there may be scope for possible external funding.

6.6.4 Other recommendations

During the work of the Task Group a number of other suggestions were made, which the Task Group would support, these include a hand over meeting between the outgoing and incoming Mayors to aid continuity and that where possible fundraising by Council staff and the Mayor should be co-ordinated to help prevent duplication. Additionally the Task Group support the on going cataloguing of civic insignia and would support further consideration being given to its display and storage.

Recommendation 8

Town Crier c) That the Council re-establish the office of Town Crier and recruit to this post through a public competition.

30 Page 39

6.8 Twinning

The District is currently twinned with 5 towns in Europe – Perpignan in France, Rendsburg in Germany, Aalborg in Denmark, Lublin in Poland and Vaxjo in Sweden. The Task Group considered a request to twin with a town in China but felt that this would not be appropriate given the distance and practicalities of exchange visits and encouraged the Council not to do so.

It was felt that instead civic links with local Chinese communities should be strengthened especially in light of the cockling disaster.

It was also thought that there was further scope for local businesses and organisations to benefit greatly from forging links with their counterparts in our twinned towns. Friendships could be forged, visits undertaken and knowledge shared with this undertaking.

Recommendation 9

6.9 Charity Funding

During its work the Task group became aware of a number of charities, bequests and endowments that the Council has over the years become responsible for. Whilst some of these were being put to their correct use such as the William Smith Festival, Williamson Park and the War Memorial Fund, others are not being used and are collecting interest. The Task Group requested Officers to investigate these charitable funds and consider:

• How they could be better used for their original purpose • A reduction in the number and work involved in administering charities.

31 Page 40

An audit was carried out of all charities, bequests and endowments that the Council has responsibility for details of which are set out in Appendix F.

Currently there is a total of approximately £50, 000 of charitable funds, which are accruing interest and not being used.

In order to bring this money back in to public use it is proposed to consolidate the charities to form the following five charities to be managed by the Lancaster City Council with the income by a Committee of trustees appointed by the Council, supported by Democratic Services and used for the following purposes:

William Briggs and Sarah Ann Albright Trust (Approximately £3052)

• To purchase/ restore pictures, works of art and objects of local interest at Town Hall, Museum or Art Gallery.

Enid Smith Trust (Approximately £5100)

• Promotion and encouragement of moral and intellectual training of children.

The Task Group believe that this Charity is ideally placed to further the aims and objective of increasing and promoting Citizenship with regard to young people in the district.

Pyper, Dean, Aitken and Seward Schools Prize and Exhibitions Fund (Approximately £14,800)

• Provision of secondary school exhibitions and maintenance allowances. • Prizes for musical knowledge, Botany, religious knowledge or Geology. • Musical education of boys and girls within the district.

Isabella Simpson and Mrs Green Charity (Approximately £16,300)

• Support to Widows, Spinsters and the poor.

There are several charities and charitable funds that the City Council has relating to current and former education establishments for safekeeping. It is recommended that this money (or the charity if preferred) is transferred to the relevant Board of Governors for use as prize money for the school.

Skerton Community High School

There is approximately £1,320 of money relating to the former Skerton Girls and Boys Schools (now the Skerton Community High School).

Lancaster and Morecambe College

There is approximately £3530 of money relating to Lancaster and Morecambe College and its preceding institutions.

Lancaster Girls Grammar School

There is approximately £62 of money relating to the Lancaster Girls Grammar School.

32 Page 41

Bowerham County School

There is approximately £122 of money relating to Bowerham County School.

Our Lady’s Catholic School

There is approximately £86 of money relating to Our Lady’s Catholic School.

Additionally, there is a sum of approximately £1,200, known as the Jane Gardner bequest for assisting those in the district with Tuberculosis. It is proposed that this is consolidated with the James Bond and Henry Welch Charity (managed by Democratic Services), which has similar aims and objectives

It should be noted that in order to make the changes as set out above there will need to be discussions with various parties including joint trustees and boards of governors. All changes would require agreement and approval by the Charity Commission. This work will involve officer time and therefore it is recommended that allocations be placed in the Democratic Services Business Plans for 2007/08.

Recommendation 10 a) That the amendments, transfers, proposed objectives and consolidations of charitable funds as set out above be agreed, subject to the required approvals being obtained. b) That officers be authorised to begin discussions with the Charity Commission, boards of governors and joint trustees. c) That this work be included within the Democratic Services Business Plan 2007/08. d) That the County Council be requested to consider the transfer of the Bertha Taylor and Agnes Holmes Charitable funds to the relevant Board of Governors for use as prize money for the school.

(7) Conclusion

In conclusion, it is our view that the recommendations as set out in this report will compliment, revise and rejuvenate the current civic programme. We believe that the Civic programme is important to the Council and most importantly the community which we serve. However over the years this has become disconnected from the work of the Council, despite real and strong connections existing. We believe this is an opportunity to reconnect these elements and use the civic programme and mayoralty to help meet corporate objectives and to address the issues of citizenship and the Respect agenda.

33 Page 42

This page is intentionally left blank PROMOTING THE CITY EVENTS – INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL Appendix A ANNUAL COUNCIL – INVOLVEMENT OF SCHOOLS COUNCIL MEETINGS MAYOR AT HOMES LINKS WITH LOCAL MAYORS SUNDAY THE DUCHY HOSPITAL VISITING DEMOCRACY OF RESPECT ORGANISATIONS WEEK LANCASTER CITIZENSHIP

MAYORS TRADITION CHARITY EVENTS A - POLITICAL CEREMONY

FREEDOM MARCHES OPENING OF EVENTS PUBLIC AWARENESS FIRST CITIZEN CIVIC REGALIA

CIVIC TOWN/ Page 43 LINKS WITH UNIVERSITY DISTRICT AND ST MARTINS COLLEGE WIDE

MAYORS NETWORKING YOUTH GAMES

REMEMBRANCE DAY REPRESENTATION

CHARITY ROYAL EVENTS ENGAGING WITH THE FREEMAN OF THE CITY PUBLIC, SCHOOLS MEDIA CIVIC APPOINTMENTS AND YOUNG TOURISM PEOPLE HMS LANCASTER AND TRAFALGAR CIVIC STAFF BUDGETS TWINNING RECEPTIONS PROFILE FESTIVALS CHURCH AND AND FAITHS EMPLOYEES – RETIREMENTS ETC MAYORAL CARS ARMY EVENTS AND MILITARY ACHIEVEMENTS OF PEOPLE/ORGANISATIONS MAYORS SERGEANT/TOWN SERGEANT HERITAGE COMMITTEE Page 44

This page is intentionally left blank APPENDIX B

1. What do you understand by the word • I don't think anyone understands the word Civic at Lancaster District. It is a term relating to a single identity “Civic”? for a District, duty associated with a District and a sense of pride. Whilst such things have been common place in my last authorities, I have to say that the period since 1974 appears to have done very little to create any sense of Civic holisticness in this area. Very sad, but true. Roll on Unitary Authorities.

• Civic has many meanings. I would think it was more appropriate for the task group to define it and then ask questions. However, the context of the Task Group is surely civic as the ceremonial and mayoral side of the council as opposed to representative and decision making side.

• To me the word 'civic' (in the context of civic events) has mostly negative connotations:

* old-fashionedness - doing things as they've always been done Page 45 * dressing up in silly clothes to make some people feel or look more important than other people * pomp and ceremony * religious (Church of England) and militaristic connotations

Obviously to some people these will all be positive things rather than negative, but I just have a personal aversion to such things, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels like that. My hunch is that younger people might be more likely to feel like me, but perhaps the CTG will be able to test that theory.

• I think Civic means functions that are carried out by the Mayor or 1st Citizen which carry a ceremonial content ie 1 meeting visiting dignitaries. 2 attending functions where residents require the presence of someone in authority. 3 opening ceremonies. 4 representing our district at official occasions in other authorities. 5 being a figurehead that is respected.

• "Civic" and the related Mayoralty represents for me a bundle of related aspects of the Council. It is above and 35 outside of the cut and thrust of party politics. It is a long link with the past - going back to the days of John O' Gaunt - and we have a duty to maintain this historical continuity. It symbolises and gives voice to the image of the Council received by citizens - exemplifying our corporate body in a pleasing and reverent and respectful way. It allows citizens of all political opinions and of none to subscribe to the ideals of an elected representative Body. It regularly brings to life the theory of the council - for children, for senor citizens and for everyone in between. It allows us to "match" and synchronise our corporate body with other such bodies in the community - eg the University, or the Health Authority, or other local authorities, or all the other organisations and entities that a part of the tapestry of local governance. It gives a unique public identity to the Council.

• I tend to think of “Civic” as something formal and ceremonial although I agree that this isn’t true!

• of the people or public

• of or belonging to the population [owned by the whole of the citizen body in trust for future generations i.e. not for sale]

Page 46 • Is it to do with citizenship and how to be civil, or how not to be criminal or political. To be honest I don’t know if there is a definitive answer.

• formal ceremonial duties of the council, plus administrative duties, i.e mayor making.

• Relating to pride in the place you love and the Council’s responsibility for this

• I guess I think it means public/community and, in council terms, non political

• the word civic to me means something about citizenship I suppose.

• I would associate the word CIVIC, as belonging to a City, or Town of which involves the Citizens of that place. The Civic Centre is an area which contains municipal buildings, and offices, which I would say are there for the benefit of those citizens.

• "of citizens or citizenship" In this context I take it to differentiate between the role that the Mayor has as first citizen of the District and the City Councils responsibilities for community leadership and service provision.

• Some function associated with the Council.

• my understanding of "civic" is that it is a ceremonial event at which the mayor attends in a formal capacity

• 'Civic' as public/citizen ceremonial activity - a duty for the Mayor/Deputy Mayor as the City's primary citizen(s) to publicly undertake and meet their roles and responsibilities, supported by the elected representatives, where appropriate. It is for the conduct of ceremonial duties only.

• Mayor Making.

2. Which Civic/Mayoral event • I attend the remembrance events and mayor making but not usually the mayoral lunch (2005 was a not to be do you support during the repeated exception). Remembrance is I think important and reasonable well done. I don't think mayor making Municipal Year? adds much to the life of the town. We overload it with ceremony that we carry out badly (criticism of some members for their attachment to outdated ritual not of officers for the organisation which is carried out well. The mayoral lunch is way over the top. There is absolutely no need for a three course sit down lunch. There is certainly no need at all to offer port or brandy (in the middle of a working day for heavens sake).

• The only civic event that I regularly attend is Holocaust Memorial Day, because I feel strongly about the theme Page 47 and I like the way it is organised, with a solemn bit (vigil and speeches) followed by a life-affirming, diverse community get-together. I have also attended the welcome for overseas students which is pretty good, though maybe it would be even better if it involved more activities such as tours of the town hall or entertainments.

I attend a lot more community events than Council-organised civic events. I think I would be more supportive of the mayoralty if the mayor were elected on merit rather than seniority (perhaps it could be someone outside the Council who has contributed a lot to community life? Maybe they could be elected by the community rather than just rubber-stamped by councillors?) - and if they didn't get driven around in a posh car!

On the positive side, it's good that a lot of mayoral events raise money for charity, and bring people together to celebrate their contribution to community life.

• Mayor Making, Mayor's Sunday and Remembrance Sunday

• I seek to attend all the big Mayoral events - the Mayor Making, the Remembrance Service, the charitable coffee mornings, Fairs, Cheese and Wine evenings etc. I hope that Mayoralty can go from strength to strength.

• I always go to the mayor-making although I don’t wear robes. I usually try to go to Cllr funerals and I do wear

37 robes there if that is what the dead person would have wanted.

• Mayor making, Remembrance Sunday, Youth Games, when applicable. Fund raising events when possible.

• Mayor making and Remembrance Sunday.

• Well not many really most of the require spending hours in little groups with a glass of wine or whatever muttering all sorts of nothings, I do attend the Mayor making on behalf of the constituents who elect me ,and would wish me to represent them ,at such an occasion, although personally I don’t attend the luncheon afterwards, more wine and muttering I’m afraid. I tend to support the chosen charity but discreetly. I wait with baited breath to see the Civic programme based on the Vision for the future.

• Mayor Making and dinner afterwards ( although I do feel that the dinner is something we could look at reducing or getting rid of), I try to get to the mayor in the community events afterwards to show support. I also try to attend the annual mayoral church service and budget meeting.

Page 48 • Mayor’s charity functions, Mayor Making, Mayor’s Service, at homes.

• Usually the bowling night, the tea with the mayor and others we can donate to.

• In IS we don't support any Civic or Mayoral events that I can think of.

• I have been to most of the Mayors events.

• Each year Mayor making, Mayors Sunday, Freeman of the City, Overseas Students evening and Remembrance Sunday. Others occasionally such as new Uni. chancellor, new constable of the castle, royal visits, Aldermen funerals.

• The Mayoral Lunch.

• I attend very little - Annual Council (every other year only) and Remembrance Sunday when I am available.

38 Page 49

APPENDIX C

QUESTIONS – CIVIC TASK GROUP

1. What do you consider to be the advantages of the current Civic Programme ?

• Tried and tested over the years and therefore easy to carry out. • Celebrates the success and traditions of the district. • Promotes the area, supports local charities and organisations. • Public engagement. • Mayor’s at Home – although for a limited audience. • Civic head – seen to engage with young people. • Community Leadership and historic Lancaster. • Reinforces Mayor as first citizen • This district has safeguarded much of it’s heritage and local traditions.

2. What do you consider to be the disadvantages of the current Civic Programme ?

• Has been going on for too long without change. • Reception for Parish Councillors poorly attended. • Mayors Sunday not well attended. • Overseas students reception – but did improved last year. • No consistency year to year – links are forged then lost when the new Mayor begins. • No fresh ideas. • Spend a lot of time doing because it is traditional and not many people have an interest. • Mayor making is deteriorating – less and less Councillors and public attend. • Annual Council dinner is the worst aspect. • The presence of the local press has reduced. Needs to be modernised. • Does not correspond to the Council’s Corporate Plan. • Mayors of the County meeting up 12 times a year – what is the benefit – it is inappropriate. • Not enough local media coverage • Some of the civic spaces such as Ashton hall do not lend themselves well to community events i.e. too big…dusty…unwelcoming.

3. What are your views on having a Mayor for the District ?

• Essential to have a Mayor – tradition. • Think the Mayor should not Chair Council meetings. • There should be a Civic figurehead. The Mayor should Chair Council but requires training. • Gives Lancaster a sense of place and community – people associate the Mayor. • Historic city – fits to have a Mayor. • First Citizen. • Should not Chair Council meetings. • Most senior and most respected position on the authority. • Civic post well regarded by many in the community, and is also a way of networking with other outside bodies and local authorities. The position of Mayor is one which deserves our full support and protection.

4. How many Civic Events do you attend and which ones ?

• All • Most • Not many • Mayor Making but not the lunch, Remembrance Sunday and Armistice Day. • Many – Remembrance Sunday, Armistice Day, Mayor Making etc

39 Page 50

• As many as possible. 5. If you do attend Civic events, why do you do so ?

• All • In bred in me to go – was told it was very important to go. • Mayor Making but not the lunch, Remembrance Sunday and Armistice Day. • To become more involved in the community within which my family and I live.

6. There is a view that ALL Councillors and Senior Officers should attend formal events such as Mayors’ Sunday ? What are your views on this ?

• Agree • Yes. Each political party should have a Civic Champion who would encourage all other Members to attend. Councillors who receive special responsibility allowance ie Chairman, leaders etc represent Council so should attend. This should be replicated with Officers – seniority. • Cannot enforce this. • It should left to the discretion of members which events they feel they should attend and not mandated by Council. I would object to Councillors being obliged to attend Mayors’ Sunday on both personal and spiritual grounds.

7. How do you think we can improve the current Civic Programme ?

a. Freeman’s Court – move to Annual Council b. Outgoing Councillors after an election – present with a badge at Annual Council. c. P.R. – use ‘Your District Matters’ more. d. Link in with Festivals and Events Programme. e. Make Annual Council less inclusive – don’t just invite the usual people, invite the public. f. Involve the community. g. Request feedback on events. h. 2007 – 2009 will be Town Hall and Williamson Park Centenary Years – set up an organising committee to co-ordinate celebrations for both. i. Ensure the resources in place for events are correct – the right people on the day. j. Go into the community and engage with the public young people especially. k. Move away from the traditional ceremonies. l. Needs to tie in with the Corporate Plan. m. Freemen – change to women and men and include the whole District not just historic boundaries. The oath that is used should be modernised – suggest the respect agenda could be used to do this. n. Make the program more relevant to today’s society. Update it to reflect what is actually of importance to people locally and to visitors.

8. What are your suggestions for the future ?

a. Overseas student reception – sponsored by a brewery? Drink on arrival then the bar would be open to purchase drinks. Tour of the Town Hall – sign up on the night and be sent an invitation for a later date. b. Annual Council – again sponsored by a local brewery. Introduce a buffet allowing the Mayor to network. c. Contact St Martins College for assistance setting up a website/links for twining. d. Strengthen links with local Chinese community. e. Twinning – how do we deal with invitations to celebrate our twinned town’s key dates? f. Consider how requests to the Mayor are dealt with. g. The Mayor’s Charity should be supported in the charities programme of the Council. h. Replace the Annual Council dinner. i. The 12 meetings that take place each year of the Counties Mayors should be reduced – rotate these with other authorities so these meeting take place perhaps just 4 time a year. 40 Page 51

j. Respect tradition but try not to make it too stuffy or inaccessible.

9. In your opinion, how could the Council improve citizenship with the community?

a. Administration Services and Councillors – create a package that could be taken into schools – including a mock election, meeting the Mayor, pupil power game etc. b. Introduce Civic Awards. c. Introduce a Citizens Charter. d. Councillors and Chief Officers need to be more visible in community engagement. e. Engage with schools. f. Link Community Leadership with the Corporate Plan. g. Incorporate the Respect Agenda. h. Engage people on matters which are important to them…dirty streets, missed bins, antisocial behaviour. i. Plan a civic program around rewarding people who are able to take these issues for the communities benefit.

10. One suggestion was the introduction of a Citizenship Panel, elected by Council to help promote citizenship in the District by visiting schools, clubs etc, judge the Citizenship competition and help organise large events. What are your views on this?

• All agreed with the introduction of a Citizenship Panel, but clear boundaries would need to be established when it was scoped as to what was included in its remit. • The Panel could co-ordinate the Centenary celebration.

11. What are your feelings on the following suggestion that came out of a recent meeting of the Task Group :

The Mayor Making Ceremony, taking place possibly on a Saturday, with a formal ceremony ( with possibly a blessing from all faiths with all the community represented). This would include a report from the outgoing Mayor on achievements in the year, the incoming Mayor would set out their aims for the forthcoming year and citizenship awards would be presented.

This would be followed by an informal buffet allowing the Mayor to network and meet community reps, citizenship award winners, public etc( who would be able to attend - buy a ticket, win etc)

This could be followed by a carnival-like day, with perhaps a procession to a church for a multi faith service, with bands, Dalton Square closed off with stalls, Town Crier competition, fireworks etc.

• All agreed with the above in principle. • Suggest a parade on Friday night. • Use Williamson Park, Priory or Ryelands Park instead of Dalton Square to attract more people into a safer place.

41 Page 52

This page is intentionally left blank Page 53

APPENDIX D

QUESTIONS – CIVIC TASK GROUP

1. What are your views on having a Mayor for the District?

• Agree that there should be a Mayor for the district • Should continue but make duties/views more widespread • Should be a Mayor for the district • Favour traditional Mayoral role with a senior Councillor representing the community at local events, opening ceremonies etc • Good idea • Neutral – probably inappropriate to a district – as distinct from a town or city. • Traditional therefore keep. • Ambivalent • We want to keep the Mayor

2. What do you consider to be the advantages of the current Civic Programme?

a. Do not know what the Civic Programme is b. Get to forge lots of links with other communities both here and abroad. c. Feel the programme is appropriate to keep a high profile and publicise the district. d. Do not know what the Civic Programme is e. None f. Not apparent g. Support it

3. What do you consider to be the disadvantages of the current Civic Programme ?

a. Do not know what the Civic Programme is b. Very little impact on rural communities c. Only certain members of the community get to meet the Mayor over their 12 months in office d. Lack of publicity – very little is known of what is involved. e. All rather removed from village communities – its natural/historically city based. f. Does not involve rural communities g. Not apparent h. None

4. How do you think we can improve the current Civic Programme?

a. People need to know about it – it needs to be accessible, in the press, on the website. b. If the Mayor’s Office went the monthly list of engagements to the clerk of the Parish, it would be displayed on notice boards. c. Events outside the City d. By publicity e. Advertise more what is going on

5. Do you attend any Civic Events?

a. Very few b. Yes c. Yes d. Yes – usually represented at Mayoral reception fro Parish Councils e. Rarely f. No g. No h. Yes

42 Page 54

6. If you do attend Civic events, why do you do so?

a. Support the Mayor b. To try t be more aware of the thoughts of local politicians c. Through the LAPTC d. Invited to attend e. Civic pride – support institution - history

7. Have you ever invited the Mayor to attend a function and if so why/why not?

a. Yes – invited the Mayor to events because she is independent of the Parish and is Leader of the district. b. Seldom have functions c. No – didn’t know we could d. Yes – opened our village hall e. No – Mayor is remote to village community – we tend to invite MP or local notable. f. As a Parish Council we have no functions for Mayor to attend. g. No h. No

8. Do you use the Council’s website and if so for what reason?

a. Not much, only for information b. For planning applications c. To check on planning d. Yes – variety of information on local issues e. Specific information – not to browse f. No g. Yes

9. Do you think your organisation would make use of a dedicated page to the Mayor where you could ask questions of the Mayor, invite the Mayor to attend an event etc.

a. Yes – to gain information b. Maybe c. Yes d. Probably not e. No f. No g. No

10. In your opinion, how could the Council improve citizenship within the community?

a. Get into schools and colleges – engage young people b. Become less urban biased c. By being more open d. Maintain distinct identities for both Lancaster and Morecambe promoting the district characteristics of both townships e. It is only citizens who can improve citizenship. The profile of the Council and its achievements might encourage citizenship ie make citizens aware that ordinary people can do things for the community. f. Who has decided citizenship needs improving in the community? g. Teach citizenship in schools, it no longer exists in most homes.

11. What are your feelings on the following suggestion that came out of a recent meeting of the Task Group :

The Mayor Making Ceremony, taking place possibly on a Saturday, with a formal ceremony (with possibly a blessing from all faiths with all the community 43 Page 55 represented). This would include a report from the outgoing Mayor on achievements in the year, the incoming Mayor would set out their aims for the forthcoming year and citizenship awards would be presented.

This would be followed by an informal buffet allowing the Mayor to network and meet community reps, citizenship award winners, public etc( who would be able to attend - buy a ticket, win etc)

• Agree • Good idea • Good idea – but again city based and reservations re parking on a Saturday • Ceremony idea good but carnival appears a good idea, but would create too many problems and unnecessary expense. • The office of the Mayor is a secular appointment – live a largely secular society. If Mayor wishes to attend his/her place of worship for a blessing this should be done with some suitable ceremony but leave speeches, awards, fireworks to the Mayor Making ceremony without the religious side. • Complete and utter rubbish and a waste of money. • Difficult to see value in it. • Yes

44 Page 56

This page is intentionally left blank Page 57

APPENDIX E HISTORY OF FREEMEN

THE FREEDOM OF LANCASTER IS A VERY ANCIENT OFFICE TO WHICH MEMBERS HAVE BEEN ADMITTED - ACCORDING TO RECORDS IN THE POSSESSION OF THE COUNCIL - FOR OVER 300 YEARS.

THE QUALIFICATIONS AT ONE TIME FOR ADMISSION AS A FREEMAN WERE THAT APPLICANTS MUST EITHER BE THE SON OF A FREEMAN OR APPRENTICED FOR SEVEN YEARS TO A FREEMAN.

THE BASIC PRIVILEGE WAS THE RIGHT TO PASTURE A LIMITED NUMBER OF BEASTS ON THE LANCASTER MARSH, WHICH WAS THE PROPERTY OF THE CORPORATION OF LANCASTER. IN 1795, THE MARSH WAS ENCLOSED WITH AN EMBANKMENT AND IMPROVED. THE FREEMEN'S RIGHTS OF PASTURAGE OVER THE MARSH WERE THEN EXTINGUISHED AND THE WHOLE OF THE LAND BECAME VESTED IN THE CORPORATION, SUBJECT TO ANY PROFITS FROM RENTALS OF THE MARSH BEING DISTRIBUTED AMONGST THE 80 SENIOR FREEMEN OF THE CITY WHO WERE ENTITLED TO THE RIGHT OF PASTURING BEASTS ON THE MARSH. FURTHER PRIVILEGES ACCORDED TO ANY FREEMAN WERE THE RIGHT TO ENTER THE CITY FREE FROM THE PAYMENT OF TOLLS, AT SUCH TOLL GATES AS WERE IN EXISTENCE, AND ALSO TO BRING GOODS THROUGH THE SAID TOLL GATES TO THE LANCASTER MARKET.

THE OATH OF A FREEMAN, WHICH IS TAKEN UPON ADMISSION TO AN ANNUAL COURT, IN THE FIRST INSTANCE, SWEARS ALLEGIANCE TO THE MONARCH. SUPPORT AND OBEDIENCE TO THE MAYOR AND MAGISTRATES OF THE CITY OF LANCASTER AND THE PAYMENT OF ALL JUST DUES ARE FURTHER REQUIREMENTS. THE OATH IMPOSES CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH FREEMEN ARE REQUIRED TO REPORT TO THE MAYOR OF THE CITY ANY UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLIES OR CONSPIRACIES WITHIN THE CITY AND RENDER AID IN PRESERVING THE PEACE WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE CITY.

A FREEMAN ALSO UNDERTOOK TO CARRY OUT TWO DUTIES WHICH ARE NOW EXTINCT - ONE REFERRING TO THE COLOURING OF GOODS OF PERSONS WHO WERE NOT FREEMEN, IN ORDER TO SECURE A FREE

45 Page 58

PASSAGE FOR SUCH GOODS THROUGH THE TOLL GATES AND THE OTHER REFERRING TO THE ENROLMENT WITH THE CORPORATION OF THE INDENTURES OF APPRENTICESHIP OF ANY APPRENTICE.

IN 1900, THE CORPORATION, DESIRING TO SECURE FULLER POWERS WITH RESPECT TO THE DISPOSAL OF THE MARSH, SECURED PARLIAMENTARY POWERS UNDER WHICH THE FREEMEN'S RIGHTS IN THE MARSH WERE EXTINGUISHED, SUBJECT TO THE PAYMENT BY THE CORPORATION OF £13 PER ANNUM TO THE 80 SENIOR FREEMEN RESIDENT WITHIN THE CITY. THE CONDITIONS FOR THE ADMISSION OF FREEMEN WERE AMENDED AT THIS TIME TO INCLUDE TWO OTHER CLASSES OF APPLICANT TO THOSE PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED, NAMELY A NATIVE OF THE CITY AND A CITIZEN OF THE CITY FOR SEVEN CONSECUTIVE YEARS.

THE RECORDS OF THE COURT, WHICH ARE IN EXISTENCE FROM 1700 ONWARDS, SHOW THAT A CONSIDERABLE NUMBER OF HUSBANDMEN, RESIDING OUTSIDE THE CITY AT THAT TIME, WERE ADMITTED AS FREEMEN OBVIOUSLY TO SECURE FREE PASSAGE THROUGH THE TOLL GATES FOR THEMSELVES AND THEIR GOODS.

THE RIGHTS OF COLLECTING TOLLS ON GOODS COMING INTO THE CITY OF LANCASTER WERE PURCHASED AND PRESENTED TO THE CITY MANY YEARS AGO BY THE LATE LORD ASHTON AND THUS ONE OF THE PRIVILEGES OF THE FREEMEN BECAME EXTINCT.

IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LONG ESTABLISHED TRADITIONS OF THE CITY, THE CITY COUNCIL HAS PRESERVED THE RIGHT TO ADMIT FREEMEN UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COUNTY OF LANCASHIRE ACT, 1984.

46 Page 59

Appendix F: Charitable Funds

Charitable funds held in Lancaster City Council Accounts, where Lancaster City Council is sole trustee, which are not being used.

Charity Objective Capital Balance Proposal (31.3.05) Jane Gardner For residents of 90 1,249.68 Amalgamate Bequest (1921) the City who are with James Not registered suffering from Bond and Henry with Charity TB. Welch Charity Commission Albright Legacy For the 450 522.96 Amalgamate (1943) purposes of with William Not registered Public Library or Briggs to form with Charity Public Museum the William Commission Briggs and Sarah Ann Albright Trust Enid Smith Promotion and 600 5,175.62 To be used for Child Study encouragement Citizenship Foundation of moral and (1934) intellectual No. 223403 training of children. William Briggs Purchase of 500 2,529.97 Amalgamate (1925) pictures, works with William No. 223404 of art and Briggs to form objects of local the William interest at Town Briggs and Hall, Museum or Sarah Ann Art Gallery Albright Trust Unknown Putting out as 17.57 336.60 Gain agreement Donors (1907) apprentice to of joint trustee No. 526065 some useful and transfer to trade or Governors of occupation a Lancaster and deserving child Morecambe of a poor College as householder in Scholarship the ancient fund. township (Poulton, Bare and Torrisholme) Mathew Pypers Provision of 736.84 11,454.91 + Pyper, Dean Foundation secondary £766.60 Aitken and (1914) school invested Seward Schools N0. 526232 exhibitions and Prize and maintenance Exhibitions allowances Fund Dean Prizes for 430 3,352.22 Pyper, Dean

47 Page 60

Scholarship in musical Aitken and Music (1895) knowledge and Seward Schools No. 526116 for the musical Prize and education of Exhibitions boys and girls Fund within the city. Seward Prize Prize for Botany 100 446.60 Pyper, Dean Not registered or Geology and Aitken and with Charity Exhibition Seward Schools Commission Award for Prize and Biology, Botany Exhibitions and Geology for Fund Students at Storey Institute Technical College or any Secondary School in the City Alderman E.C Prizes at the 47.32 31.34 Transfer to Parr – Technical Lancaster and Governors of Not registered Morecambe Lancaster and with Charity Technical Morecambe Commission College College as prize fund. Alderman E.C Prizes at the - 11.18 Transfer to Parr – Art Lancaster and Governors of Not registered Morecambe Lancaster and with Charity School of Art Morecambe Commission College as prize fund. Alderman E.C Prizes at the - -2.01 Transfer to Parr – LGGS Lancaster Girls Governors of Not registered Grammar Lancaster Girls with Charity School Grammar Commission School Cambridge Prizes at the 40 104.21 Transfer to Local Lancaster and Governors of Committee Morecambe Lancaster and Not registered School of Art Morecambe with Charity College as prize Commission fund. Eleanor Smith Science Prizes 25 28.03 Transfer to Science at the Lancaster Governors of Not registered Girls Grammar Lancaster Girls with Charity School Grammar Commission School A.E French Needlework 100 437.54 Transfer to Needlework prize and Governors of Not registered Exhibition Lancaster and with Charity Scholarship at Morecambe Commission the Lancaster College as prize and Morecambe fund.

48 Page 61

School of Art Sir Thomas Prizes at the 100 251.92 Transfer to Storey Memorial Lancaster and Governors of A.E French Morecambe Lancaster and Needlework Technical Morecambe Not registered College College as prize with Charity fund. Commission Dr. James Prizes for 181.03 1,881.58 Pyper, Dean Aitken Memorial religious Aitken and (1936) knowledge in Seward Schools No. 526694 secondary Prize and schools and Exhibitions assistance to Fund Grammar School Pupils Annie E. Helme Art Prizes at 49.75 8.56 Transfer to – LGGS Lancaster Girls Governors of Not registered Grammar Lancaster Girls with Charity School Grammar Commission School Annie E. Helme Prizes at 15.29 47.49 Transfer to – Skerton Girls Skerton Girls Skerton (1962) Secondary Governors as Included in No. Modern School Trustees 526579 J.T Wright Prizes at 128.36 25.74 Transfer to Memorial Lancaster Girls Governors of Not registered Grammar Lancaster Girls with Charity School Grammar Commission School Annie A Millray Prizes at 7.26 18.15 Transfer to (1963) Skerton Girls Skerton Included in No. Secondary Governors as 526579 Modern School Trustees J.T Hayton Handwriting 14.54 86.24 Transfer to (1956) prize for Governors as No. 526540 Students at Trustees: Our Cathedral Lady’s School Secondary Modern Alderman H Prizes at 68.46 230.88 Transfer to Price (1959) Skerton Boys Skerton No. 526542 and Skerton Governors as Girls Secondary Trustees Modern School Skerton Old Prizes at 31.09 83.27 Transfer to Boys (1959) Skerton Boys Skerton No. 526543 Secondary Governors as Modern School Trustees Sir Edward Chemistry Prize 100 471.00 Transfer to Frankland and exhibition Governors of Not registered scholarship at Lancaster and

49 Page 62 with Charity Lancaster and Morecambe Commission Morecambe College as prize Technical fund. College J Shuttleworth Science Prizes 40 269.98 + £80.30 Transfer to (1963) or allied invested Skerton Included in No. subjects at Governors as 526579 Skerton Boys Trustees Secondary Modern School Skerton School Prizes at 85.88 143.69 Transfer to Parents (1963) Skerton Boys Skerton Included in No. Secondary Governors as 526579 Modern School Trustees H J Weaver Prizes at 68.45 382.40 Transfer to Memorial (1965) Skerton Boys Skerton Included in No. Secondary Governors as 526579 Modern School Trustees E. W Soar Prizes at 10.64 24.53 Transfer to Memorial Skerton Boys Skerton Not registered Secondary Governors as with Charity Modern School Trustees Commission

H J Weaver Prizes at 16.37 43.11 Transfer to (National Skerton Boys Skerton Association of Secondary Governors as Teachers) Modern School Trustees (1965) Included in No. 526579 I H Storey Prizes and 100 389.74 Transfer to Memorial Exhibition Governors of Not registered Scholarship for Lancaster and with Charity Electrical Morecambe Commission Engineering at College as prize the Lancaster fund. and Morecambe College of further Education G R Roberts Prizes at 25.67 122.53 Transfer to Foundation Bowerham Governors of (1936) County School Bowerham No. 526395 School Charitable funds held in Lancaster City Council Accounts, where Lancaster City Council is joint trustee, which are not being used.

H L Storey Science 325 1,467.77 Gain agreement Science Scholarships at of joint trustee Scholarship Lancaster and and transfer to Not registered Morecambe Governors of with Charity Technical Lancaster and

50 Page 63

Commission College. Morecambe Joint trustees College as with Kenneth L Scholarship Storey Esq fund.

Sir Richard Prizes at 7.13 36.66 Gain agreement Owen Memorial Lancaster and of joint trustee Not registered Morecambe (if in existence) with Charity Technical and transfer to Commission College Governors of Joint trustees Lancaster and with Lancaster Morecambe Astronomical College as and Scientific Scholarship Association fund. Charities funds not held in Lancaster City Council Accounts, where Lancaster City Council is sole trustee, which are not being used.

The Isabella the payment of ? 15, 184.52 Consolidate Simpson not more than with 223402, Charity (1920) £10 each per 22340 and No. 223402 annum to 249775 to form spinsters over the Isabella the age of 35 Simpson and years who may Mrs Green be in need of Charity help and who have resided in the city for at least 10 years. The Isabella The payment of ? Included as Consolidate Simpson not more than above with 223402, Charity The £10 each per 22340 and Second (1964) annum to 249775 to form No. 223401 spinsters over the Isabella the age of 35 Simpson and years who may Mrs Green be in need of Charity help and who have resided in the city for at least 10 years. Mrs Green’s Annual income ? £1,138.84 Consolidate Charity (1896) to be paid to the with 223402, No. 249775 mayor and vicar 22340 and who shall on 249775 to form every Christmas the Isabella eve out of such Simpson and income pay to Mrs Green forty widows Charity residing in the borough of Lancaster the

51 Page 64

sum of 3/- each and the residue of such income shall be paid and applied to such poor person(s) or for such charitable purposes as they from time to time determine. Charitable funds held by Lancashire County Council, for the benefit of the Lancaster City Council area which are not being used.

Bertha Taylor Prizes to Boys ? ? Request County Prize (1951) and Girls for to gain No. 526406 Annual Sports agreement for at Morecambe transfer to and Heysham, Governors of Euston Road relevant school. County School Agnes Holmes The award of a ? ? Request County Prize Fund book prize to gain (1956) annually to the agreement for No. 526539 value of £1 to transfer to the boy or girl Governors of that has relevant school. attained the highest position in English language, Literature and who has produced the best essay of the year at Balmoral Road County School.

52 Page 65 Agenda Item 10

COUNCIL

2007/08 Budget and Policy Framework Update 6 December 2006

Report of Cabinet

PURPOSE OF REPORT

To inform Council of and seek approval for various aspects of the 2007/08 budget and policy framework, namely: (a) the outcome of the review of the Medium Term Financial Strategy and proposed Council Tax targets for future years; (b) Cabinet’s draft proposals regarding revised corporate priorities for 2007/08 onwards, for approval as the basis for preparing the Corporate Plan and subsequent draft budgets; and (c) the outcome of the review of Special Expenses and the way forward.

This report is public.

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. That Council notes the revised financial projections underpinning the current Medium Term Financial Strategy, and that in principle the existing Council Tax target increase of no more than 4.9% for future years be retained, but that this be reviewed during the budget process alongside the use of surplus balances.

2. That Council endorses the revised list of Cabinet priorities as the basis for preparing the 2007/08 Corporate Plan and subsequent draft budgets.

3. That for the short term, including 2007/08 Council Tax setting, Council retains the current arrangements for special expenses as an interim measure.

REPORT

1 MEDIUM TERM FINANCIAL STRATEGY (MTFS) REVIEW

1.1 At the October Cabinet meeting Members considered a report that provided information on this year’s first review of the financial projections underlying the MTFS (Minute no.63 refers). This was in order that Cabinet could review the appropriateness of existing targets for Council Tax increases and make recommendations on to Council as required; they were also reflected in the public consultation exercise on proposed Corporate Priorities as covered in section 2 of this report. Whilst any approved targets will form the initial basis for the forthcoming budget and planning exercise, there will still be the opportunity of amending them as the budget process develops.

Page 66

1.2 The outcome of the review and its impact on the financial projections is summarised in the table below; in broad terms there has been a significant improvement in the financial projections, particularly for 2007/08. Members are requested to refer back to the Cabinet report itself for details of the changes and the underlying assumptions.

2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 Budget Projection Projection £000 £000 £000

Changes approved or considered by +49 +2 +2 Members to date

Other known/ potential budget changes -232 -390 -166 (including Star Chamber proposals)

Changes in contributions to(+) / from (-) +183 -146 -97 balances

Total Reduction (-) in Budget Projections 0 -534 -261

Resulting Projected Council Tax n/a 6.2% 11.5% Increase (across district)

New Net Savings Requirement to achieve n/a 91 595 4.9% Increase

1.3 In deciding whether to seek retention of the existing Council Tax target increase for future years or put forward an alternative, Cabinet took account of information on other related matters such as the latest announcements regarding capping, etc, as well as the above financial projections. In recommending the retention of the existing target of no more that 4.9%, this was put forward on the clear understanding that it be kept under review as the budget develops.

1.4 As part of the MTFS review Cabinet also considered the latest balances position, as the projections shown above assume that the current application of surplus balances (in the ratio 3:2:1) would be retained. Whilst it seemed apparent that fixing such a ratio to be applied rigidly over a 3 year period may no longer be the most appropriate solution, it was impractical to put forward any firm proposal as budget projections for 2009/10 had not yet been prepared. Cabinet therefore recommends to Council that the policy on the use of surplus balances also be reviewed during the budget exercise to ensure that it continues to support sustainable and prudent financial planning as well as sustainable service delivery.

2 CORPORATE PRIORITY PROPOSALS

2.1 In addition to considering Council Tax targets, the Council’s approved Budget and Policy Framework timetable requires Cabinet to bring forward a revised set of corporate priorities that can be used as a basis to prepare both the 2007/08 Corporate Plan and the subsequent draft revenue and capital budgets.

2.2 As a consequence, Cabinet recently undertook a public consultation exercise on a revised set of corporate priorities that it wished to use as a basis for updating the Page 67

2007/08 Corporate Plan and subsequent budgets. At its meeting on 14 November, Cabinet received responses to the consultation exercise and agreed to delegate to a smaller group of Cabinet members the task of analysing the responses and effecting amendments to the priorities that were the subject of the consultation (minute 73 refers).

2.3 At the time of writing, the group had not concluded its discussions and as a consequence, it has not been possible to attach a revised set of Cabinet priorities that reflect consideration of the consultation responses. However, arrangements are in place to conclude this exercise prior to the Council meeting and the amended Cabinet priorities and draft Corporate Plan will be circulated as soon as practicable.

2.4 Council are asked to consider and amend as appropriate the preferred list of priorities and draft 2007/08 Corporate Plan so that they can be used to inform the 2007/08 budget exercise and the subsequent draft budgets.

3 REVIEW OF SPECIAL EXPENSES

3.1 During last year Members resolved that a review of the current arrangements for special expenses be undertaken and that various options for their future be considered in context of other developments in ‘local’ government; this was therefore incorporated into the 2007/08 Budget and Policy Framework timetable. The outcome of the review was reported to Cabinet at its November meeting; again Members are requested to refer back to that report for further information.

3.2 The review was set, as far as possible, in context of the following:

- best practice guidance (part of the Quality Town & Parish Council Scheme); - a proposed rural neighbourhood management project; - the recently issued White Paper: Strong and Prosperous Communities and the opportunity for seeking unitary status; and - the earliest timescales for the proposed Town Council for Morecambe.

3.3 Given these issues and the uncertainties surrounding them, Council is requested to approve that in the short term the current arrangements for special expenses be retained as an interim measure. This is on the basis that for future years, revised financial arrangements between the City Council and Parish Councils be developed in line with the good practice principles outlined in the Cabinet report, but also taking into account the outcome of the proposed rural neighbourhood management project and the White Paper. The timing of introducing revised arrangements would be dependent on these aspects.

3.4 In order to support the development of revised financial arrangements, the City Council would seek further information from parishes on their detailed spending plans for 2007/08 (and their outturn for 2006/07). It would be necessary over the coming year or so to work with parishes to pull together such information and to formulate detailed arrangements for future years, to ensure that the new arrangements are workable and acceptable.

3.5 Consultation with parishes is currently underway on this matter and a summary of the responses received to date is included at Appendix A; any further responses will be circulated prior to the meeting. A common theme arising from the consultation is concern about the timescales. Ideally the review would have been undertaken sooner thereby giving more time and this is acknowledged, though given the timing of Page 68

the publication of the White Paper and other recent developments it is difficult to see how this could have been achieved fully. The Head of Financial Services has written to Parish Clerks explaining the situation and she is also due to attend the LAPTC meeting on 27 November. Assuming the recommendations are approved, however, there will be a good opportunity for all parishes to be involved in developing revised arrangements for the future, and as no changes are proposed in the short term, there should be no new impact on parishes for the next year or so.

CONCLUSION OF IMPACT ASSESSMENT (including Diversity, Human Rights, Community Safety, Sustainability and Rural Proofing) There are no implications arising from this report.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS There are no financial implications arising from this report.

SECTION 151 OFFICER’S COMMENTS The Section 151 Officer has been consulted and has no comments to add.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS There are no legal implications arising from this report.

MONITORING OFFICER’S COMMENTS The Constitution requires Cabinet to bring forward on an annual basis its budget and policy framework proposals. The consideration of a revised set of corporate priorities for inclusion in the draft 2007/08 Corporate Plan is the first step in this process that will eventually result in more detailed budget and policy framework proposals being developed by Cabinet for Council’s consideration at its February meeting.

BACKGROUND PAPERS Contact Officer: Roger Muckle Telephone: 01524 582022 None. E-mail: [email protected] Ref: RCM/JEB

APPENDIX A SPECIAL EXPENSES REVIEW – OUTCOME OF CONSULTATION

RESPONSES FROM PARISH CLERKS RECEIVED TO DATE (TO 24 NOVEMBER)

PARISH COMMENTS

RESPONSES FED INTO CABINET ON 14 NOVEMBER: HALTON WITH AUGHTON PARISH Unhappy at timescale. Fortunately they had a meeting the day they received the consultation letter and were COUNCIL able to discuss it then, otherwise they wouldn’t have been able to respond by the deadline (for getting a response into Cabinet). They confirm they support the recommendations to retain the existing arrangements on an interim basis only.

CARNFORTH Considerable concern over consultation, including apparent urgency and timescales for getting response into the Cabinet meeting on 14 November. As their parish meeting was being held on 15 December, they could not respond in time for it. In view of this, a request was made for Cabinet to postpone consideration of the review.

Page 69 (In view of the proposal to retain the existing arrangements, and the deadline of 01 December for feeding responses into this Council meeting, Cabinet chose not to postpone consideration.)

OTHER RESPONSES RECEIVED TO DATE: COCKERHAM Support the option of retaining existing arrangements until more information is assembled. (Unable to comment further until the way forward for the future is clearer – too many ‘ifs’ and ‘buts’ at this stage.)

BORWICK Unhappy at timescales, and therefore difficult to have a meaningful discussion with Chairman. Made a number of points, however: wanted sufficient time for debate (on future arrangements) so that the whole village may be involved suggested parish precept levels be calculated on a per capita basis for comparison would like some indication on why there are big variations in parish spending levels feel that interim arrangements would allow more time for clarifying future arrangements, and for them to be seen in relation to each of the parishes do not want to lose cooperation with City Council under any new arrangements; concern that this may happen if a standard set of rules and procedures are forced on villages etc. have total support for the best practice principles, and would like to play as full a part as possible in working together on formulating future arrangements. . PRIEST HUTTON Have considered the points raised in the review - no comments made on proposed way forward, but highlight that they share several services with Borwick and so this needs considering also.

Page 70

This page is intentionally left blank Page 71 Agenda Item 14

COUNCIL

PROMENADE BYELAWS

6th December 2006

Report of Chief Executive

PURPOSE OF REPORT

This report seeks Council’s formal approval of the final version of the proposed byelaws for Morecambe Promenade.

This report is public.

1. RECOMMENDATIONS

That Council resolve to make byelaws as set out in Appendix A to the report, and authorise the Head of Legal and Human Resources to advertise the byelaws and submit them to the Department for Communities and Local Government for confirmation.

2. INTRODUCTION

2.1 As Members will recall, at its meetings on the 14th June and 12th July 2006 the Council considered reports on proposed byelaws, including byelaws for the Promenade.

2.2 On the 14th June 2006, it was resolved that Council adopt the Promenade Byelaws as appended to the report, but that the Head of Legal and Human Resources be authorised to finalise the wording with the Department of Communities and Local Government and in particular negotiate for the inclusion in the byelaws of a provision that cycling be permitted on the Promenade on the same terms as are set out for skateboards. Minute 25 refers. This would in effect include a requirement in the byelaws that “no person shall cycle in such a manner as to cause danger or give reasonable grounds for annoyance to other persons using the Promenade.”

2.3 Initially, the Department of Communities and Local Government indicated that the Council’s request was acceptable, and this was reported in a supplementary written report to the Council meeting on the 12th July. However, it was further reported that shortly before the start of the meeting on the 12th July, this agreement had been retracted and as there had been insufficient time available to resolve the reasoning behind this, it was necessary to defer further consideration of the Promenade Byelaws to enable the matter to be properly resolved. Minute 45 refers.

3. PROPOSAL DETAILS

Page 72

3.1 Further to the meeting on the 12th July 2006, the Head of Legal and Human Resources wrote to the Department for Communities and Local Government reiterating the Council’s request to include a byelaw that “no person shall cycle in such a manner as to cause danger or give reasonable grounds for annoyance to other persons using the Promenade.” As requested by the DCLG, a formal application for provisional approval of byelaws varying from the DCLG Model was submitted on the 18th July 2006.

3.2 On the 2nd October 2006 provisional approval was received from the Department for Communities and Local Government for the byelaws as set out in Appendix A to this report. This includes the additional provision requested by Council.

3.3 Council is now requested to formally approve the making of byelaws in this form. The procedure then is for the byelaws to be sealed and advertised in the local newspaper and then to be submitted to the Department for Communities and Local Government for confirmation.

4. DETAILS OF CONSULTATION

The byelaws have been the subject of public consultation carried out by Cultural Services (formerly Leisure Services) and there has been an ongoing dialogue with the Department for Communities and Local Government (formerly the ODPM) on the wording of the byelaws. The details of the byelaws have been debated by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, and by full Council on the 14th June 2006.

5. OPTIONS AND OPTIONS ANALYSIS (INCLUDING RISK ASSESSMENT)

The byelaws are being brought to this meeting for formal acceptance in the light of the DCLG’s response in respect of byelaw 6. Council has already debated the contents of the byelaws, and any other amendment is not therefore an option.

6. CONCLUSION

Council is recommended to make the byelaws as set out in Appendix A to this report.

CONCLUSION OF IMPACT ASSESSMENT (including Diversity, Human Rights, Community Safety, Sustainability and Rural Proofing)

The byelaws impact on a range of issues, with the aim of balancing wider recreational use of the Promenade while protecting public safety.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

None arising directly from this report. The cost of advertising the byelaws in the local newspaper will be met from existing budgets within Cultural Services.

SECTION 151 OFFICER’S COMMENTS

The Section 151 Officer has been consulted and has no further comments to add.

Page 73

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

The legal implications are incorporated in the report.

MONITORING OFFICER’S COMMENTS

The Monitoring Officer has been and is involved in the discussions with ODPM/Department for Communities and Local Government, to ensure that the byelaws are suitable for confirmation.

BACKGROUND PAPERS Contact Officer: Sarah Taylor Telephone: 01524 582025 Letter from DCLG 2nd October 2006 E-mail: [email protected]

Page 74

This page is intentionally left blank Page 75

LANCASTER CITY COUNCIL BYELAWS FOR MORECAMBE PROMENADE ARRANGEMENT OF BYELAWS

1. Interpretation 2. Application 3. Motor vehicles 4. Trading 5. Skateboarding, etc 6. Cycling 7. Kites and kite-buggies 8. Fires 9. Camping 10. Protection of flowerbeds and plants 11. Unauthorised erection of structures 12. Removal of signs and structures 13. Interference with life-saving appliances 14. Obstruction 15. Savings 16. Penalty 17. Revocation

Page 76

Byelaws made under section 83 of the Public Health Acts Amendment Act 1907 by Lancaster City Council for the prevention of danger, obstruction, or annoyance to persons using the esplanades or promenades.

Interpretation

1. In these byelaws:

“the Council” means Lancaster City Council;

“invalid carriage” means a vehicle, whether mechanically propelled or not,

(a) the unladen weight of which does not exceed 150 kilograms,

(b) the width of which does not exceed 0.85 metres, and

which has been constructed or adapted for use for the carriage of a person suffering from a disability, and used solely by such a person;

“promenade” means Morecambe Promenade as shown in the map to these byelaws;

“motor vehicle” means a mechanically propelled vehicle other than an invalid carriage;

“self-propelled vehicle” means a vehicle other than a cycle, invalid carriage or pram which is propelled by the weight or force of one or more persons skating, sliding or riding on the vehicle or by one or more other persons pulling or pushing the vehicle.

Application

2. These byelaws apply to Morecambe Promenade which is shown coloured red on the attached map

Motor vehicles

3. No person shall without reasonable excuse drive or bring a motor vehicle or trailer onto the promenade except—

(a) on any part of the promenade where there is a right of way for that class of vehicle; or

(b) with the consent of the Council.

Trading

4. No person shall—

(a) sell or hawk any article or any food or drink;

2 Page 77

(b) advertise or solicit custom for any service; or

in such a manner as to cause obstruction or annoyance to any person on the promenade.

Skateboarding, etc.

5. No person shall skate, slide or ride on rollers, skateboards or other self- propelled vehicles on the promenade in such a manner as to cause danger or give reasonable grounds for annoyance to other persons using the promenade.

Cycling

6. No person shall cycle on the promenade in such a manner as to cause danger or give reasonable grounds for annoyance to other persons using the promenade.

Kites and kite-buggies

7. No person shall on the promenade fly any kite or ride or drive any vehicle powered by a kite in such a manner as to cause danger, nuisance or annoyance to any other person on the promenade.

Fires

8. (1) No person shall on the promenade light a fire, or place, throw or drop a lighted match or any other thing likely to cause a fire.

(2) Byelaw 8(1) shall not apply to the lighting of a fire on the promenade with the consent of the Council.

Camping

9. No person shall on the promenade without the consent of the Council erect a tent or use a vehicle, caravan or any other structure for the purpose of camping.

Protection of flowerbeds and plants

10. No person shall walk on or ride over—

(a) any flowerbed, shrub or plant;

(b) any ground in the course of preparation as a flowerbed or for the growth of any tree, shrub or plant; or

3 Page 78

(c) any area of the promenade set aside by the Council for the renovation of turf or for other landscaping purposes and indicated by a notice conspicuously displayed.

Unauthorised erection of structures

11. No person shall without the consent of the Council erect any barrier, post, ride or swing, building or any other structure on the promenade.

Removal of Signs and Structures

12. No person shall, without reasonable excuse, remove from or displace any barrier, post or seat or any part of any structure or ornament or any notice or flag displayed by or on behalf of the Council or any other competent authority on the promenade.

Interference with Life-saving Appliances

13. No person shall, except in case of emergency, remove from or displace any life-saving appliance provided by or on behalf of the Council or other competent authority on the promenade.

Obstruction

14. No person shall on the promenade —

(a) obstruct any officer of the Council in the proper execution of his duties;

(b) obstruct any person carrying out an act which is necessary to the proper execution of a contract with the Council.

Savings

15. It shall not be an offence under these byelaws for an officer of the Council to do anything necessary to the proper execution of his duty or for any person acting in accordance with a contract with the Council to do anything necessary to the proper execution of that contract.

Penalty

16. Any person offending against any of these byelaws shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale.

Revocation

17. The byelaws relating to the promenade which were made by Lancaster City Council on 26th April 1978 and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department on 15th August 1978 are revoked.

4 Page 79

GIVEN under the Common Seal of the Lancaster City Council this day of Two thousand and six

THE COMMON SEAL of the LANCASTER CITY COUNCIL was hereunto affixed in the presence of:

Corporate Director

5 Page 80

This page is intentionally left blank Page 81 Page 82

This page is intentionally left blank Page 83 Agenda Item 15

COUNCIL

Gambling Act 2005 – Statement of Gambling Licensing Policy 6th December 2006

Report of Head of Legal and Human Resources

PURPOSE OF REPORT

To enable Council to approve its Statement of Gambling Licensing Policy for publication.

This report is public

RECOMMENDATIONS

(1) That Council approve the Statement of Gambling Licensing Policy appended to this report, and authorise the Head of Legal and Human Resources to publish the Statement in accordance with the requirements of the Gambling Act 2005.

1.0 Introduction

1.1 The Gambling Act 2005 transfers to local authorities certain licensing functions in respect of premises used for gambling, for example betting shops and bingo halls. Section 349 of the Act requires that before each successive period of three years, a Council must prepare a statement of the principles that it proposes to apply in exercising its functions under the Act, and must publish the statement. Regulations require that the first such statement must be published by the 3rd January 2007.

1.2 Whilst the Act provides that the Council’s gambling licensing functions are delegated to the licensing committee established under Section 6 of the Licensing Act 2003 (in the case of this Council, the Licensing Act Committee), the function of approving and adopting the licensing policy cannot be delegated, and is a function of full Council.

1.3 However, in view of the role of the Licensing Act Committee under the Gambling Act 2005, it was considered appropriate for the Committee to be involved in the consultation process on the draft Policy. Accordingly, the consultation draft of the Policy was considered by the Committee at its meeting on the 20th July 2006. The draft Policy was then the subject of public consultation from the 21st July to the 16th October 2006, and a further draft, amended in the light of consultation responses, was considered by the Committee on the 16th November.

1.4 The report of the 16th November is appended to this report. The Committee recommended Council to approve the draft Policy, subject to one minor wording

Page 84

change in paragraph 9.15. The Policy as recommended by the Committee (and incorporating that minor change) is appended to this report.

2.0 Proposal Details

2.1 Council is therefore recommended to consider approving the Statement of Gambling Licensing Policy as attached.

3.0 Details of Consultation

3.1 The draft Policy was the subject of public consultation from the 21st July to the 16th October 2006. The Policy was available on the Council’s website during that period, and details of the persons and organisations specifically consulted are set out in the Policy itself.

4.0 Options and Options Analysis (including risk assessment)

4.1 In order to meet the statutory deadline for publication of the Policy, it is necessary for it to be approved at this meeting, either as currently drafted or with amendments. In considering any amendments that it might wish to make, Council should note that the Policy as drafted meets the statutory requirements, and is consistent with the policies of neighbouring authorities.

5.0 Conclusion

5.1 Council is asked to approve its statement of gambling licensing policy.

CONCLUSION OF IMPACT ASSESSMENT (including Diversity, Human Rights, Community Safety, Sustainability and Rural Proofing)

The Policy reflects the licensing objectives set out in the Gambling Act 2005, which are as follows: preventing gambling from being a source of crime or disorder, being associated with crime or disorder or being used to support crime; ensuring that gambling is conducted in a fair and open way; and protecting children and other vulnerable persons from being harmed or exploited by gambling.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

There are no financial implications arising from the approval of the policy.

SECTION 151 OFFICER’S COMMENTS

The Section 151 officer has been consulted and has no further comments to add.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

Legal Services have advised on the preparation of the draft Policy. Page 85

MONITORING OFFICER’S COMMENTS

The Deputy Monitoring Officer has been consulted and has no further comments.

BACKGROUND PAPERS Contact Officer: Mrs. S.Taylor Telephone: 01524 582025 Draft Policy and consultation responses E-mail: [email protected] Ref: ST

Page 86

This page is intentionally left blank Lancaster City Council Appendix A

Schedule of Responses to Gambling Act 2005 - draft Statement of Gambling Policy

Reference Respondent Comments Appraisal Recommendation

1 Enterprise Inns 1. No under 18’s to play 1. Noted. See Policy 9.17, 1. No change 2. Supervision of machines 10.2, 11.2 2. No change 3. Procedure for permits for more 2. No requirement but could 3. No change than 2 machines be considered as a 4. No change 4. Transitional arrangements condition when an application is made 3. Applications for more than Page 87 2 machines treated on individual merits. 4. Regulations still being debated. Separate guidelines will be published in due course. 2 British Beer & Pub Comments same as Enterprise As Above As Above Association Inns above 3 Gamblers 1. Provided information about its 1. Noted. 1. To add to ‘useful Anonymous organisation and no other addresses’ appendix. comments on contents of the draft policy. 4 The Racecourse No comments on draft policy. 1. N/A. 1. N/A. Association

1 Lancaster City Council Appendix A

5 Gosschalks 1 Door supervision – suggested 1 See Policy 9.20 1 Suggested wording be Solicitors on behalf additional wording 2. See Policy 14.1 added at 9.22 of Association of 2. Betting machines – suggested 3. New application must be 2. No change British additional wording made and each 3. No change Bookmakers 3. Re-siting of premises – request considered on its own 4. No change for licensing authorities to merits 5. No change support this progress 4. Not a policy issue – good 6. Copy of adopted policy 4. Enforcement – Central contact practice will be sent 5. Location of premises – request 5. See Policy 9.7 – each on that location is not a factor its own merits – onus on 6. Request copy of final policy applicant to show how concerns may be overcome. Section 5.9 of Page 88 the Guidance states licensing authorities will need to consider questions raised by the location of gambling premises 6. Agreed

2 Page 89

Gambling Act 2005 – Draft Statement of Licensing Policy

Appendix B

GAMBLING ACT 2005

LANCASTER CITY COUNCIL

DRAFT STATEMENT OF LICENSING POLICY

Any queries regarding this draft policy should be addressed to:-

Licensing Manager

Legal and Human Resources,

Palatine Hall, Dalton Square,

LANCASTER LA1 1PJ

e-mail: [email protected]

Further copies may be obtained from the above address or from the Council’s website:- www.lancaster.gov.uk

Version 3 – December 2006

1 Page 90

Gambling Act 2005 – Draft Statement of Licensing Policy

Appendix B

Draft Statement of Licensing Policy Gambling Act 2005 Version 3 (Published December 2006)

Contents Preface ...... 4

Part A - General

1. The licensing objectives ...... 5 2. Introduction ...... 6 3. Declaration ...... 8 4. Responsible Authorities...... 8 5. Interested parties...... 8 6. Exchange of information...... 10 7. Enforcement...... 11 8. Licensing authority functions ...... 12

Part B - Premises Licences

9. General Principles...... 14 10. Adult Gaming Centres...... 19 11. (Licensed) Family Entertainment Centres ...... 20 12. Casinos ...... 21 13. Bingo premises ...... 22 14. Betting premises ...... 23 15. Tracks ...... 23 16. Travelling fairs...... 26 17. Provisional Statements...... 27 18. Reviews...... 28

2 Page 91

Gambling Act 2005 – Draft Statement of Licensing Policy

Appendix B

Part C - Permits/Temporary and Occasional Use Notices

19. Unlicensed Family Entertainment Centre gaming machine permits ...... 29 (Alcohol) Licensed premises gaming machine permits ...... 30 21. Prize Gaming Permits ...... 31 22. Club Gaming and Club Machines Permits...... 32 23. Temporary Use Notices...... 33 24. Occasional Use Notices...... 34

Appendices Appendix 1...... 35 Appendix 2...... 39 Appendix 3...... 40 Appendix 4...... 42 Appendix 5...... 43

This Statement of Licensing Policy has been drafted at a time when a number of regulations, Operating/Personal Licence conditions, Codes of Practice and guidance are not yet published. Should anything in these impact upon the content of this document it will need to be borne in mind and amended at a later stage, bearing in mind resource implications for the authority. All references to the Gambling Commission's Guidance for local authorities refer to the Guidance published in April 2006.

3 Page 92

Gambling Act 2005 – Draft Statement of Licensing Policy

Appendix B Preface

Under the Gambling Act 2005, a new regime for regulating gambling and betting will be introduced throughout the United Kingdom from 1st September 2007. Apart from the National Lottery and spread betting, all gambling and betting will be regulated by the Gambling Commission, whose duties include licensing the operators and individuals involved in providing gambling and betting facilities.

Lancaster City Council, along with other local licensing authorities, has a duty under the Act to license premises where gambling is to take place and to license certain other activities (such as registering small society lotteries). This document sets out how the Council intends to approach this task.

In preparing this document, Lancaster City Council has worked with its neighbouring district, South Lakeland District Council, which in turn has worked with the other district Councils in Cumbria. The document also draws on guidance from LACORS (Local Authorities Co- ordinators of Regulatory Services). This should ensure some consistency within the region, and with other local authorities generally.

4 Page 93

Gambling Act 2005 – Draft Statement of Licensing Policy

Appendix B Part A

1. The Licensing Objectives

1.1 In exercising most of their functions under the Gambling Act 2005 (“the Act”), licensing authorities must have regard to the licensing objectives as set out in section 1 of the Act. The licensing objectives are:

• Preventing gambling from being a source of crime or disorder, being associated with crime or disorder or being used to support crime

• Ensuring that gambling is conducted in a fair and open way

• Protecting children and other vulnerable persons from being harmed or exploited by gambling

1.2 It should be noted that the Gambling Commission has stated: “The requirement in relation to children is explicitly to protect them from being harmed or exploited by gambling”.

1.3 This licensing authority is aware that, in making decisions about premises licences and temporary use notices it should aim to permit the use of premises for gambling in so far as it thinks it:

• in accordance with any relevant code of practice issued by the Gambling Commission

• in accordance with any relevant guidance issued by the Gambling Commission

• reasonably consistent with the licensing objectives and

• in accordance with the authority’s statement of licensing policy

Authorised Activities

1.4 ‘Gambling’ is defined in the Act as gaming, betting or participating in a lottery:

• ‘gaming’ means playing a game of chance for a prize;

5 Page 94

Gambling Act 2005 – Draft Statement of Licensing Policy

Appendix B

• ‘betting’ means making or accepting a bet on the outcome of a race, competition, or any other event; the likelihood of anything occurring or not occurring; or whether anything is true or not true;

• a ‘lottery’ is where persons are required to pay in order to take part in an arrangement, during the course of which one or more prizes are allocated by a process which relies wholly on chance.

1.5 Private gaming in private dwellings and on domestic occasions is exempt from licensing or registration providing that no charge is made for participating; only equal chance gaming takes place; and it does not occur in a place to which the public have access. Domestic betting between inhabitants of the same premises or between employees of the same employer is also exempt.

1.6 Non-commercial gaming and betting (where no parts of the proceeds are for private gain) may be subject to certain exemptions. Further advice should be sought from the Council’s Licensing section where appropriate.

2. Introduction

2.1 In terms of area, Lancaster is the second largest district council in Lancashire, covering a total of 576 square kilometres. The boundaries extend to Cumbria and South Lakeland District in the North, North Yorkshire and Craven District in the East, and Wyre Borough in the South. A map of the district is included at Appendix 5.

2.2 There are two large urban centres of population, at Lancaster and Morecambe, and a smaller town, Carnforth, to the north, together with an extensive rural area. The district has an estimated total population of 134,000 (2001 Census figure), and an influx of tourists, to the seaside resort of Morecambe and to the historic city of Lancaster, increases this population.

2.3 Approximately 71% of the population live in the city of Lancaster and the seaside town of Morecambe and Heysham. Lancaster itself has two higher education establishments, namely Lancaster University and St. Martin’s College.

2.4 The remaining 29% of the population live in a network of settlements of varying sizes along the A6 and along the Lune Valley.

2.5 Licensing authorities are required by the Gambling Act 2005 to publish a statement of the gambling licensing policy which they proposed to apply when exercising their functions. This statement must be published at least every three years. The statement

6 Page 95

Gambling Act 2005 – Draft Statement of Licensing Policy

Appendix B

must also be reviewed from “time to time” and any amended parts re-consulted upon. The statement must be then re-published.

2.6 Lancaster City Council consulted widely upon this statement before finalising and publishing it. A list of those persons consulted is included in Appendix 1.

2.7 The Gambling Act requires that the following parties are consulted by Licensing Authorities:

• The Chief Officer of Police;

• One or more persons who appear to the authority to represent the interests of persons carrying on gambling businesses in the authority’s area;

• One or more persons who appear to the authority to represent the interests of persons who are likely to be affected by the exercise of the authority’s functions under the Gambling Act 2005.

2.8 Lancaster City Council’s consultation took place between Friday 21st July and Monday 16th October 2006.

2.9 The full list of comments made and the consideration by the Council of those comments will be available on request to the person named below.

2.10 The policy will be approved at a meeting of the Full Council on the 6th December 2006. It was published in draft via our website on 21st July 2006. Copies were placed in the public libraries of the area as well as being available in the Council offices. Please contact the person named below for more information.

2.11 Should you have any comments as regards this policy statement please send them in writing to the following address:

Licensing Manager, Legal and Human Resources, Palatine Hall, Dalton Square, Lancaster LA1 1PJ

or by e- mail to [email protected]

2.12 It should be noted that this policy statement will not override the right of any person to make an application, make representations about an application, or apply for a review

7 Page 96

Gambling Act 2005 – Draft Statement of Licensing Policy

Appendix B

of a licence, as each will be considered on its own merits and according to the statutory requirements of the Gambling Act 2005.

3. Declaration

3.1 In producing the final statement, this licensing authority declares that it has had regard to the licensing objectives of the Gambling Act 2005, the guidance issued by the Gambling Commission, and any responses from those consulted on the statement.

4. Responsible Authorities

4.1 The licensing authority is required by regulations to state the principles it will apply in exercising its powers under Section 157(h) of the Act to designate, in writing, a body which is competent to advise the authority about the protection of children from harm. The principles are:

• the need for the body to be responsible for an area covering the whole of the licensing authority’s area; and

• the need for the body to be answerable to democratically elected persons, rather than any particular vested interest group.

4.2 This authority considers that the Safeguarding Board of Lancashire County Council is best able to fulfil the role of advising the Authority about the protection of children from harm. It therefore designates the Safeguarding Board of Lancashire County Council for purposes of Section 157(h) of the Act.

4.3 The contact details of all the Responsible Authorities under the Gambling Act 2005 will be made available once this policy has been finalised.

5. Interested Parties

5.1 Interested parties can make representations about licence applications, or apply for a review of an existing licence. Interested parties are defined in the Gambling Act 2005 as follows:

“For the purposes of this Part a person is an interested party in relation to an application for or in respect of a premises licence if, in the opinion of the licensing authority which issues the licence or to which the applications is made, the person:

8 Page 97

Gambling Act 2005 – Draft Statement of Licensing Policy

Appendix B

a) lives sufficiently close to the premises to be likely to be affected by the authorised activities,

b) has business interests that might be affected by the authorised activities, or

c) represents persons who satisfy paragraph (a) or (b)”

5.2 The licensing authority is required by regulations to state the principles it will apply in exercising its powers under the Gambling Act 2005 to determine whether a person is an interested party. The principles are set out in the following paragraphs.

5.3 This authority will not apply a rigid rule in this respect, and each case will be decided upon its merits. It will consider the examples of considerations provided in the Gambling Commission’s Guidance for local authorities at 8.14 and 8.15. These are:

5.3.1 The size of the premises

5.3.2 The nature of the premises

5.3.3 The catchment area of the premises

5.3.4 The distance of the premises from the location of the person making the representation

5.3.5 Whether the person making the representation has business interests in the catchment area that might be affected

5.3.6 The potential impact of the premises (number of customers, routes likely to be taken by those visiting the establishment)

5.3.7 The circumstances of the complainant – not the personal circumstances, but the interests of the complainant which may be relevant to the distance from and effects of the premises. For example the authority may conclude that “sufficiently close to be affected” should have a different meaning in relation to a private individual from that in relation to a residential hostel for vulnerable adults.

5.4 This licensing authority accepts the Gambling Commission's Guidance that "has business interests" should be given the widest possible interpretation and include partnerships, charities, faith groups and medical practices.

9 Page 98

Gambling Act 2005 – Draft Statement of Licensing Policy

Appendix B

5.5 The Gambling Commission has recommended that interested parties include trade associations and trade unions, and residents’ and tenants’ associations. This authority will not however generally view these bodies as interested parties unless they represent a member who can be classed as an interested person under the terms of the Gambling Act 2005 i.e. lives sufficiently close to the premises to be likely to be affected by the activities being applied for.

5.6 The Gambling Commission has further stated that interested parties can be persons who are democratically elected such as councillors and MPs. No specific evidence of being asked to represent an interested person will be required as long as the councillor/MP represents the ward likely to be affected. Likewise, parish councils likely to be affected, will be considered to be interested parties. Other than these however, this authority will generally require written evidence that a person/body (eg an advocate/relative) ‘represents’ someone who either lives sufficiently close to the premises to be likely to be affected by the authorised activities and/or has business interests that might be affected by the authorised activities. A letter from one of these persons, requesting the representation is likely to be sufficient.

5.7 If individuals wish to approach a Councillor to represent their views then care should be taken that the Councillor is not a Member of the Committee or sub-committee dealing with the licence application. This is to prevent any perception of bias. If there are any doubts then please contact the Licensing section.

6. Exchange of Information

6.1 Licensing authorities are required to set out the policies applied by the authority in exercising the functions under sections 29 and 30 of the Act with respect to the exchange of information between it and the Gambling Commission, and the functions under section 350 of the Act with respect to the exchange of information between it and the other persons listed in Schedule 6 to the Act.

6.2 The principle that this licensing authority applies is that it will act in accordance with the provisions of the Gambling Act 2005 in its exchange of information which includes the provision that the Data Protection Act 1998 will not be contravened. The licensing authority will also have regard to any Guidance issued by the Gambling Commission to local authorities on this matter when it is published, as well as any relevant regulations issued by the Secretary of State under the powers provided in the Gambling Act 2005.

6.3 Should any protocols be established as regards information exchange with other bodies then they will be made available. This authority will normally share the information it holds about licensed premises with the Gambling Commission, the Police and other responsible authorities.

10 Page 99

Gambling Act 2005 – Draft Statement of Licensing Policy

Appendix B

6.4 This licensing authority will provide details of interested parties and complainants to the relevant licence holder or applicant. However, it will not normally release such details in publicly accessible agenda documents.

7. Enforcement

7.1 Licensing authorities are required by regulation under the Gambling Act 2005 to state the principles to be applied by the authority in exercising the functions under Part 15 of the Act with respect to the inspection of premises; and the powers the Act to institute criminal proceedings in respect of the offences specified.

7.2 This licensing authority’s principles are that:

It will be guided by the Gambling Commission’s Guidance for local authorities and will endeavour to be:

• Proportionate: regulators should only intervene when necessary: remedies should be appropriate to the risk posed, and costs identified and minimised;

• Accountable: regulators must be able to justify decisions, and be subject to public scrutiny;

• Consistent: rules and standards must be joined up and implemented fairly;

• Transparent: regulators should be open, and keep regulations simple and user friendly; and

• Targeted: regulation should be focused on the problem, and minimise side effects.

7.3 This licensing authority will endeavour to avoid duplication with other regulatory regimes so far as possible.

7.4 This licensing authority will also adopt a risk-based inspection programme. The main enforcement and compliance role for this licensing authority in terms of the Gambling Act 2005 will be to ensure compliance with the premises licences and other permissions which it authorises. The Gambling Commission will be the enforcement body for the operating and personal licences.

7.5 This licensing authority’s enforcement/compliance protocols/written agreements and risk methodology will be available upon request to the Licensing section and via our website. 11 Page 100

Gambling Act 2005 – Draft Statement of Licensing Policy

Appendix B

8. Licensing Authority Functions

8.1 Licensing Authorities are required under the Act to:

• Be responsible for the licensing of premises where gambling activities are to take place by issuing Premises Licences

• Issue Provisional Statements

• Regulate members’ clubs and miners’ welfare institutes which wish to undertake certain gaming activities via issuing Club Gaming Permits and/or Club Machine Permits

• Issue Club Machine Permits to Commercial Clubs

• Grant permits for the use of certain lower stake gaming machines at unlicensed Family Entertainment Centres

• Receive notifications from alcohol licensed premises (under the Licensing Act 2003) for the use of one or two gaming machines

• Issue Licensed Premises Gaming Machine Permits for premises licensed to sell/supply alcohol for consumption on the licensed premises, under the Licensing Act 2003, where there are more than two machines

• Register small society lotteries below prescribed thresholds

• Issue Prize Gaming Permits

• Receive and Endorse Temporary Use Notices

• Receive Occasional Use Notices

• Provide information to the Gambling Commission regarding details of licences issued (see section above on ‘information exchange)

• Maintain registers of the permits and licences that are issued under these functions

• Exercise its powers of compliance and enforcement under the Act, in partnership with the Gambling Commission and other relevant responsible authorities.

12 Page 101

Gambling Act 2005 – Draft Statement of Licensing Policy

Appendix B

The Gambling Commission

8.2 The Gambling Commission regulates gambling in the public interest. It does so by keeping crime out of gambling; by ensuring that gambling is conducted in a fair and open way; and by protecting children and vulnerable people. The Commission provides independent advice to the Government about the matter in which gambling is carried out, the effects of gambling and the regulations of gambling generally.

8.3 The Commission has issued guidance under Section 25 of the Act about the manner in which licensing authorities exercise their licensing functions under the Act and, in particular, the principles to be applied.

8.4 The Commission will also issue Codes of Practice under Section 24 about the way in which facilities for gambling are provided, which may also include provisions about the advertising of gambling facilities.

8.5 The Gambling Commission can be contacted at:

Gambling Commission Victoria Square House Victoria Square Birmingham B2 4BP Website: www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk Email: [email protected]

13 Page 102

Gambling Act 2005 – Draft Statement of Licensing Policy

Appendix B Part B Premises Licences

9. General Principles

9.1 Premises licences will be subject to the requirements set out in the Act and regulations, as well as specific mandatory and default conditions which will be detailed in regulations issued by the Secretary of State. The licensing authority is able to exclude default conditions and also attach others, where it is believed to be appropriate.

9.2 This licensing authority is aware that in making decisions about premises licences it should aim to permit the use of premises for gambling in so far as it thinks it:

• in accordance with any relevant code of practice issued by the Gambling Commission;

• in accordance with any relevant guidance issued by the Gambling Commission;

• reasonably consistent with the licensing objectives; and

• in accordance with the authority’s statement of licensing policy.

9.3 This authority will not regard moral objections to gambling as a valid reason to reject applications for premises licences (except as regards any 'no casino resolution' - see section on Casinos below) and also acknowledges that unmet demand is not a criterion for a licensing authority to consider.

9.4 Definition of “premises” - Premises is defined in the Act as “any place”. Different premises licences cannot apply in respect of a single premises at different times. However, it is possible for a single building to be subject to more than one premises licence, provided they are for different parts of the building and the different parts of the building can be reasonably regarded as being different premises. Whether different parts of a building can properly be regarded as being separate premises will always be a question of fact in the circumstances. However, the Gambling Commission does not consider that areas of a building that are artificially or temporarily separate can be properly regarded as different premises.

14 Page 103

Gambling Act 2005 – Draft Statement of Licensing Policy

Appendix B

9.5 This licensing authority takes particular note of the Gambling Commission’s Guidance for local authorities which states that:

• licensing authorities should take particular care in considering applications for multiple licences for a building and those relating to a discrete part of a building used for other (non-gambling) purposes. In particular they should be aware that entrances and exits from parts of a building covered by one or more licences should be separate and identifiable so that the separation of different premises is not compromised and that people do not ‘drift’ into a gambling area.

• licensing authorities should pay particular attention to applications where access to the licensed premises is through other premises (which themselves may be licensed or unlicensed). Clearly, there will be specific issues that authorities should consider before granting such applications, for example, whether children can gain access; compatibility of the two establishments; and ability to comply with the requirements of the Act. But, in addition an overriding consideration should be whether, taken as a whole, the co-location of the licensed premises with other facilities has the effect of creating an arrangement that otherwise would, or should, be prohibited under the Act.

9.6 It should also be noted that an applicant cannot obtain a full premises licence until the premises in which it is proposed to offer the gambling are constructed. The Gambling Commission has advised that reference to "the premises" are to the premises in which gambling may now take place. Thus a licence to use premises for gambling will only be issued in relation to premises that are ready to be used for gambling. This authority agrees with the Gambling Commission that it is a question of fact and degree whether premises are finished to a degree that they can be considered for a premises licence. The Gambling Commission emphasises that requiring the building to be complete will ensure that the authority can, if necessary, inspect it fully, as can other responsible authorities with inspection rights.

9.7 Location - This licensing authority is aware that demand issues cannot be considered with regard to the location of premises but that considerations in terms of the licensing objectives can. This authority will pay particular attention to the protection of children and vulnerable persons from being harmed or exploited by gambling, as well as issues of crime and disorder. Should any specific policy be decided upon as regards areas where gambling premises should not be located, this statement will be updated. Any such policy will not preclude an application being made and each application will be decided on its merits, with the onus being upon the applicant to show how potential concerns can be overcome.

15 Page 104

Gambling Act 2005 – Draft Statement of Licensing Policy

Appendix B

9.8 Duplication with other regulatory regimes - This licensing authority will seek to avoid any duplication with other statutory/regulatory systems where possible, including planning. In considering a licence application, this authority will not consider whether a licence application is likely to be awarded planning permission or building regulations approval. It will, though, listen to, and consider carefully, any concerns about conditions which are not able to be met by licensees due to planning restrictions, should such a situation arise.

Licensing Objectives

9.9 Premises licences granted must be reasonably consistent with the licensing objectives. With regard to these objectives, this licensing authority has considered the Gambling Commission’s Guidance to local authorities and some comments are made below.

9.10 Preventing gambling from being a source of crime or disorder, being associated with crime or disorder or being used to support crime - This licensing authority is aware that the Gambling Commission will be taking a leading role in preventing gambling from being a source of crime. The Gambling Commission's Guidance does however envisage that licensing authorities should pay attention to the proposed location of gambling premises in terms of this licensing objective. Thus, if an area should have known high levels of organised crime, this authority will consider carefully whether gambling premises are suitable to be located there and whether conditions may be suitable such as the provision of door supervisors. This licensing authority is aware of the distinction between disorder and nuisance and will consider factors such as whether police assistance was required and how threatening the behaviour was to those who could see it, so as to make that distinction. Issues of nuisance cannot be addressed via the Gambling Act provisions.

9.11 Ensuring that gambling is conducted in a fair and open way - This licensing authority would generally not expect to become concerned with ensuring that gambling is conducted in a fair and open way as this will be addressed via operating and personal licences issued by the Gambling Commission. There is however, more of a role with regard to tracks which is explained in more detail in the 'tracks' section below (Paragraph 15).

9.12 Protecting children and other vulnerable persons from being harmed or exploited by gambling - This objective means preventing children from taking part in gambling (as well as restriction of advertising so that gambling products are not aimed at or are particularly attractive to children). The licensing authority will therefore consider, whether specific measures are required at particular premises, with regard to this licensing objective. Appropriate measures may include supervision of entrances/ machines, segregation of areas etc.

16 Page 105

Gambling Act 2005 – Draft Statement of Licensing Policy

Appendix B

9.13 There is no definition of the term “vulnerable persons” but the authority will assume that this group includes people who gamble more than they want to; people who are gambling beyond their means; and people who may not be able to make informed or balanced decisions about gambling due to a learning disability, mental health problem, or the effects of alcohol or drugs. This licensing authority will consider this licensing objective on a case by case basis.

Conditions

9.14 Any conditions attached to licences will be proportionate and will be:

• relevant to the need to make the proposed building suitable as a gambling facility;

• directly related to the premises and the type of licence applied for;

• fairly and reasonably related to the scale and type of premises; and

• reasonable in all other respects.

9.15 Decisions upon individual conditions will be made on a case by case basis, although there will be a number of measures this licensing authority will consider utilising should there be a perceived need, such as the use of door supervisors, appropriate signage for adult only areas etc. There are specific comments made in this regard under some of the licence types below. This licensing authority will also expect the licence applicant to offer his/her own suggestions as to ways in which the licensing objectives can be met effectively, and this should include recognition of their social responsibility towards their customers.

9.16 This licensing authority will also consider specific measures which may be required for buildings which are subject to multiple premises licences. Such measures may include the supervision of entrances; segregation of gambling from non-gambling areas frequented by children; and the supervision of gaming machines in non-adult gambling specific premises in order to pursue the licensing objectives. These matters are in accordance with the Gambling Commission's Guidance.

9.17 This authority will also ensure that where category C (for information about the different categories of machines, please see Appendix 3) or above machines are on offer in premises to which children are admitted:

• all such machines are located in an area of the premises which is separated from the remainder of the premises by a physical barrier which is effective to prevent access other than through a designated entrance;

17 Page 106

Gambling Act 2005 – Draft Statement of Licensing Policy

Appendix B

• only adults are admitted to the area where these machines are located;

• access to the area where the machines are located is supervised;

• the area where these machines are located is arranged so that it can be observed by the staff or the licence holder; and

• at the entrance to and inside any such areas there are prominently displayed notices indicating that access to the area is prohibited to persons under 18.

These considerations will apply to premises including buildings where multiple premises licences are applicable.

9.18 This licensing authority is aware that tracks may be subject to one or more than one premises licence, provided each licence relates to a specified area of the track. This licensing authority will consider the impact upon the objective to protect children and other vulnerable persons from being harmed or exploited by gambling and the need to ensure that entrances to each type of premises are distinct and that children are excluded from gambling areas where they are not permitted to enter.

9.19 There are conditions which the licensing authority cannot attach to premises licences which are:

• any condition on the premises licence which makes it impossible to comply with an operating licence condition;

• conditions relating to gaming machine categories, numbers, or method of operation;

• conditions which provide that membership of a club or body be required (the Gambling Act 2005 specifically removes the membership requirement for casino and bingo clubs and this provision prevents it being reinstated); and

• conditions in relation to stakes, fees, winning or prizes.

9.20 Door Supervisors - This licensing authority may consider whether there is a need for door supervisors in terms of the licensing objectives of protection of children and vulnerable persons from being harmed or exploited by gambling, and also in terms of preventing premises becoming a source of crime. It is noted that door supervisors on duty at casinos or bingo premises are not required by law to be licensed by the Security Industry Authority (SIA). This licensing authority may have specific requirements for door supervisors working at casinos or bingo premises including, where it is considered necessary, a requirement that door supervisors are licensed by

18 Page 107

Gambling Act 2005 – Draft Statement of Licensing Policy

Appendix B

the SIA. This is in recognition of the nature of the work in terms of searching individuals, dealing with potentially aggressive persons, etc.

9.21 For premises other than casinos and bingo premises, operators and licensing authorities may decide that supervision of entrances/machines is appropriate for particular cases but it will need to be decided whether these need to be SIA licensed or not. It will not be automatically assumed that they need to be.

9.22 This authority has no evidence that the operation of gambling premises in its area has required door supervisors for the protection of the public. The authority will make door supervision requirements only if there is clear evidence from the history of trading at the premises that the premises cannot be adequately supervised from, for example, the counter and that door supervision is both necessary and proportionate.

9.23 It should be noted that the above paragraphs relate to door supervisors only in relation to premises licences granted under the Gambling Act 2005. Where a premises licence has also been granted under the Licensing Act 2003 in relation to the same premises, there may also be conditions on that licence which relate to door supervisors. The premises licence holder should ensure compliance with those conditions.

10. Adult Gaming Centres

10.1 This licensing authority will specifically have regard to the need to protect children and vulnerable persons from harm or being exploited by gambling and will expect the applicant to satisfy the authority that there will be sufficient measures to, for example, ensure that under 18 year olds do not have access to the premises.

10.2 This licensing authority will expect applicants to offer their own measures to meet the licensing objectives. However appropriate measures/licence conditions may cover issues such as:

• Proof of age schemes

• CCTV – this should be of sufficient quality that it will be of use in evidence

• Supervision of entrances/machine areas

• Physical separation of areas

• Location of entry

• Notices/signage

19 Page 108

Gambling Act 2005 – Draft Statement of Licensing Policy

Appendix B

• Specific opening hours

• Self-barring schemes – these are schemes whereby individuals who acknowledge they have a gambling problem ask to be barred from certain premises

• Provision of information leaflets/helpline numbers for organisations such as GamCare.

10.3 This list is not mandatory, nor exhaustive, and is merely indicative of sample measures which applicants can consider implementing.

11. (Licensed) Family Entertainment Centres

11.1 This licensing authority will specifically have regard to the need to protect children and vulnerable persons from harm or being exploited by gambling and will expect the applicant to satisfy the authority, for example, that there will be sufficient measures to ensure that under 18 year olds do not have access to the adult only gaming machine areas.

11.2 This licensing authority will expect applicants to offer their own measures to meet the licensing objectives however appropriate measures/licence conditions may cover issues such as:

• Proof of age schemes

• CCTV – this should be of sufficient quality that it will be of use in evidence

• Supervision of entrances/machine areas

• Physical separation of areas

• Location of entry

• Notices/signage

• Specific opening hours

• Self-barring schemes – these are schemes whereby individuals who acknowledge they have a gambling problem ask to be barred from certain premises

• Provision of information leaflets/helpline numbers for organisations such as GamCare.

20 Page 109

Gambling Act 2005 – Draft Statement of Licensing Policy

Appendix B

• Measures/training for staff on how to deal with suspected truant school children on the premises

11.3 This list is not mandatory, nor exhaustive, and is merely indicative of sample measures which applicants can consider implementing.

11.4 This licensing authority will refer to the Gambling Commission’s website to see any conditions that apply to operating licences covering the way in which the area containing the category C machines should be delineated. It will normally impose conditions on granting licences which accord with the above. This licensing authority will also make itself aware of and impose any mandatory or default conditions on those premises licences.

12. Casinos

12.1 This licensing authority has not passed a ‘no casino’ resolution under Section 166 of the Gambling Act 2005, but is aware that it has the power to do so. Should this licensing authority decide in the future to pass such a resolution, it will update this policy statement with details of that resolution. Any such decision will be made by the Full Council.

12.2 This licensing authority is aware that where a licensing authority area is enabled to grant a premises licence for a new style casino (ie the Secretary of State has made such regulations under Section 175 of the Gambling Act 2005) there are likely to be a number of operators which will want to run the casino. In such situations the local authority will run a ‘competition’ under Schedule 9 of the Gambling Act 2005. This licensing authority will run such a competition in line with any regulations/codes of practice issued under the Gambling Act 2005.

12.3 The Gambling Commission has stated that "further guidance will be issued in due course about the particular issues that licensing authorities should take into account in relation to the suitability and layout of casino premises" (Gambling Commission Guidance for local authorities - 17.30). This guidance will be considered by this licensing authority when it is made available.

12.4 This licensing authority will take into account the size of the premises, the number of counter positions available for person-to-person transactions, and the ability of staff to monitor the use of the machines by children and young persons (it is an offence for those under 18 to bet) or by vulnerable people, when considering the number/nature/circumstances of betting machines an operator wants to offer.

21 Page 110

Gambling Act 2005 – Draft Statement of Licensing Policy

Appendix B

13. Bingo Premises

13.1 Bingo is a class of equal chance gaming and will be permitted in alcohol licensed premises and in clubs provided it remains below a certain threshold. Otherwise it will be subject to a bingo operating licence which will have to be obtained from the Gambling Commission.

13.2 The holder of a bingo operating licence will be able to provide any type of bingo game including cash and prize bingo.

13.3 Commercial bingo halls will require a bingo premises licence from the Council.

13.4 Amusement arcades providing prize bingo will require a prize gaming permit from the Council.

13.5 The Gambling Commission’s Guidance states:

“18.4 - It is important that if children are allowed to enter premises licensed for bingo that they do not participate in gambling, other than on category D machines. Where category C or above machines are available in premises to which children are admitted licensing authorities should ensure that:

• all such machines are located in an area of the premises separate from the remainder of the premises by a physical barrier which is effective to prevent access other than through a designated entrance;

• only adults are admitted to the area where the machines are located;

• access to the area where the machines are located is supervised;

• the area where the machines are located is arranged so that it can be observed by staff of the operator or the licence holder; and

• at the entrance to, and inside any such area there are prominently displayed notices indicating that access to the area is prohibited to persons under 18.”

13.6 This licensing authority is also aware that the Gambling Commission is likely to issue further guidance about the particular issues that licensing authorities should take into account in relation to the suitability and layout of bingo premises. Any such guidance will be considered and applied by this licensing authority once it is available.

22 Page 111

Gambling Act 2005 – Draft Statement of Licensing Policy

Appendix B

Members’ Clubs and Commercial Clubs

13.7 Bingo may be provided at clubs and institutes either in accordance with a permit or providing that the limits in Section 275 of the Act are complied with. These restrictions limit the aggregate stake or prizes within any seven days to £2,000, and require the Commission to be notified as soon as is reasonably practicable if that limit is breached. Stakes or prizes above that limit will require a bingo operator’s licence and the corresponding personal and premises licences.

14. Betting Premises

14.1 Anyone wishing to operate a betting office will require a betting premises licence from the Council. Children and young persons will not be able to enter premises with a betting premises licence.

14.2 Betting premises will be able to provide a limited number of gaming machines and some betting machines.

14.3 Whilst the authority has discretion as to the number, nature and circumstances of use of betting machines, there is no evidence that such machines give rise to regulatory concerns. This authority will consider limiting the number of machines only where there is clear evidence that such machines have been or are likely to be used in breach of the licensing objectives. Where there is such evidence, when reviewing the licence this authority will assess the ability of staff to monitor the use of such machines from, for example, a counter.

14.4 This licensing authority will take into account the size of the premises, the number of counter positions available for person-to-person transactions, and the ability of staff to monitor the use of the machines by children and young persons (it is an offence for those under 18 to bet) or by vulnerable people, when considering the number/nature/circumstances of betting machines an operator wants to offer.

14.5 Each application will be considered on its own individual merits.

15. Tracks

15.1 Only one premises licence can be issued for any particular premises at any time unless the premises is a ‘track’. A track is a site where races or other sporting events take place.

23 Page 112

Gambling Act 2005 – Draft Statement of Licensing Policy

Appendix B

15.2 Track operators are not required to hold an ‘operator’s licence’ granted by the Gambling Commission. Therefore, premises licences for tracks issued by the Council are likely to contain requirements for premises licence holders about their responsibilities in relation to the proper conduct of betting. Indeed, track operators will have an important role to play, for example in ensuring that betting areas are properly administered and supervised.

15.3 Although there will primarily be a betting premises licence for the track there may be a number of subsidiary licences authorising other gambling activities to take place. Unlike betting offices, a betting premises licence in respect of a track does not give an automatic entitlement to use gaming machines.

15.4 This licensing authority is aware that tracks may be subject to one or more than one premises licence, provided each licence relates to a specified area of the track. This licensing authority will especially consider the impact upon the third licensing objective (ie the protection of children and vulnerable persons from being harmed or exploited by gambling) and the need to ensure that entrances to each type of premises are distinct and that children are excluded from gambling areas where they are not permitted to enter.

15.5 This authority will therefore expect the premises licence applicant to demonstrate suitable measures to ensure that children do not have access to adult only gaming facilities. It is noted that children and young persons will be permitted to enter track areas where facilities for betting are provided on days when dog-racing and/or horse racing takes place, but that they are still prevented from entering areas where gaming machines (other than category D machines) are provided.

15.6 This licensing authority will expect applicants to offer their own measures to meet the licensing objectives, however appropriate measures/licence conditions may cover issues such as:

• Proof of age schemes

• CCTV – this should be of sufficient quality that it will be of use as evidence

• Supervision of entrances/machine areas

• Physical separation of areas

• Location of entry

• Notices/signage

24 Page 113

Gambling Act 2005 – Draft Statement of Licensing Policy

Appendix B

• Specific opening hours

• Self-barring schemes – these are schemes whereby individuals who acknowledge they have a gambling problem ask to be barred from certain premises

• Provision of information leaflets/helpline numbers for organisations such as GamCare

15.7 This list is not mandatory, nor exhaustive, and is merely indicative of sample measures which applicants can consider implementing.

15.8 Further guidance from the Gambling Commission is awaited as regards where gaming machines may be located on tracks and any special considerations that should apply in relation, for example, to supervision of the machines and preventing children from playing them. This licensing authority will consider the location of gaming machines at tracks, and applications for track premises licences will need to demonstrate that, where the applicant holds a pool betting operating licence and is going to use his entitlement to four gaming machines, these machines are located in areas from which children are excluded. Children and young persons are not prohibited from playing category D gaming machines on a track.

15.9 Licensing authorities have a power under the Gambling Act 2005 to restrict the number of betting machines at tracks, their nature and the circumstances in which they are made available, by attaching a licence condition to a betting premises licence.

15.10 Similar considerations apply in relation to tracks, where the potential space for such machines may be considerable, bringing with it significant problems in relation to the proliferation of such machines, the ability of track staff to supervise them if they are scattered around the track and the ability of the track operator to comply with the law and prevent children betting on the machines.

15.11 This licensing authority notes the Commission’s view, that it would be preferable for all self-contained premises operated by off-course betting operators on tracks to be the subject of separate premises licence. This would ensure that there was clarity between the respective responsibilities of the track operator and the off-course betting operator running a self-contained unit on the premises.

15.12 This licensing authority will take into account the size of the premises and the ability of staff to monitor the use of machines by children and young persons (it is an offence for those under 18 to bet) or by vulnerable people, when considering the number/nature/circumstances of betting machines an operator wants to offer. This

25 Page 114

Gambling Act 2005 – Draft Statement of Licensing Policy

Appendix B

licensing authority may wish to consider restricting the number and location of such machines in respect of applications for track betting premises licences.

15.13 Condition on rules being displayed - A condition will normally be attached to track premises licences requiring the track operator to ensure that the rules relating to tracks which are contained in the Act are prominently displayed in or near the betting areas, or that other measures are taken to ensure that they are made available to the public. For example, the rules could be printed in the race-card or made available in leaflet form from the track office.

15.14 Applications and plans - This licensing authority awaits regulations setting out any specific requirements for applications for premises licences but, in accordance with the Gambling Commission's suggestion, and to ensure that the licensing authority gains a proper understanding of what they are being asked to license considers that applicants should include detailed plans for the racetrack itself and the area that will be used for temporary “on-course” betting facilities (often known as the “betting ring”) and in the case of dog tracks and horse racecourses fixed and mobile pool betting facilities operated by the Tote or track operator, as well as any other proposed gambling facilities. It also considers that plans should make clear what is being sought for authorisation under the track betting premises licence and what, if any, other areas are to be subject to a separate application for a different type of premises licence.

15.15 This licensing authority also considers that it is necessary to ensure that there is clarity between the respective responsibilities of the track operator and the off-course betting operator running a self-contained unit on the premises.

16. Travelling Fairs

16.1 This licensing authority will decide in each individual case whether, where category D machines and/or equal chance prize gaming without a permit is to be made available for use at travelling fairs, the statutory requirement that the facilities for gambling amount to no more than an ancillary amusement at the fair is met.

16.2 The licensing authority will also consider whether the applicant falls within the statutory definition of a travelling fair.

For the purposes of this Act::-

a) ‘Fair’ means a fair consisting wholly or principally of the provision of amusements, and

26 Page 115

Gambling Act 2005 – Draft Statement of Licensing Policy

Appendix B

b) a fair held on a day in a calendar year is a ‘travelling fair’ if provided:-

i) wholly or principally by persons who travel from place to place for the purpose of providing fairs and

ii) at a place no part of which has been used for the provision of a fair on more than 27 days in that calendar year.

16.3 The 27-day statutory maximum for the land being used as a fair applies to the piece of land on which the fairs are held, regardless of whether it is the same or different travelling fairs occupying the land. This licensing authority will work with its neighbouring authorities to ensure that land which crosses our boundaries is monitored so that the statutory limits are not exceeded.

17. Provisional Statements

17.1 This licensing authority endorses the Guidance from the Gambling Commission which states that “It is a question of fact and degree whether premises are finished to a degree that they can be considered for a premises licence” and that “Requiring the building to be complete ensures that the authority could, if necessary, inspect it fully”.

17.2 In terms of representations about premises licence applications, following the grant of a provisional statement, no further representations from relevant authorities or interested parties can be taken into account unless they concern matters which could not have been addressed at the provisional statement stage, or they reflect a change in the applicant’s circumstances. In addition, the authority may refuse the premises licence (or grant it on terms different to those attached to the provisional statement) only by reference to matters:

a) which could not have been raised by objectors at the provisional licence stage; or

b) which is in the authority’s opinion reflect a change in the operator’s circumstances.

17.3 The Gambling Commission’s Guidance states that “A licensing authority should not take into account irrelevant matters.... One example of an irrelevant matter would be the likelihood of the applicant obtaining planning permission or building regulations approval for the proposal”.

27 Page 116

Gambling Act 2005 – Draft Statement of Licensing Policy

Appendix B

18. Reviews

18.1 Requests for a review of a premises licence can be made by interested parties or responsible authorities. However, it is for the licensing authority to decide whether the review is to be carried out. This will be on the basis of whether the request for the review is relevant to the matters listed below:

• in accordance with any relevant code of practice issued by the Gambling Commission;

• in accordance with any relevant guidance issued by the Gambling Commission;

• reasonably consistent with the licensing objectives; and

• in accordance with this authority’s statement of licensing policy.

Consideration will also be given as to whether the request is frivolous, vexatious, will certainly not cause this authority to wish alter/revoke/suspend the licence, or whether it is substantially the same as previous representations or requests for review.

18.2 Licensing authority officers may be involved in the initial investigation of complaints and may try informal mediation or dispute resolution in an effort to avoid the need for a formal review.

18.3 The licensing authority can also initiate a review of a licence on the basis of any reason which it thinks is appropriate. This can extend to a review of a class of licences where it considers particular issues have arisen. Reviews of a class of premises will be first agreed to by the Head of Legal and Human Resources in consultation with the Chair of the Licensing Act Committee.

18.4 The Gambling Commission will be a responsible authority for premises licence reviews.

28 Page 117

Gambling Act 2005 – Draft Statement of Licensing Policy

Appendix B Part C Permits/Temporary & Occasional Use Notice

19. Unlicensed Family Entertainment Centre Gaming Machine Permits (Statement of Principles on Permits - Schedule 10 paragraph 7)

19.1 Where a premises licence is not in force in respect of the use of particular premise but the operator wishes to provide gaming machines, it may apply to the licensing authority for this permit. The applicant must show that the premises will be wholly or mainly used for making gaming machines available for use.

19.2 The Gambling Act 2005 states that a licensing authority may prepare a statement of principles that they propose to consider in determining the suitability of an applicant for a permit and in preparing this statement, and/or considering applications, it need not (but may) have regard to the licensing objectives and shall have regard to any relevant guidance issued by the Commission under section 25.

19.3 Guidance also states: “...An application for a permit may be granted only if the licensing authority is satisfied that the premises will be used as an unlicensed FEC, and if the chief officer of police has been consulted on the application....Licensing authorities might wish to consider asking applications to demonstrate:

• a full understanding of the maximum stakes and prizes of the gambling that is permissible in unlicensed FECs;

• that the applicant has no relevant convictions (those that are set out in Schedule 7 of the Act; and

• that staff are trained to have a full understanding of the maximum stakes and prizes.

19.4 It should be noted that a licensing authority cannot attach conditions to this type of permit.

19.5 This licensing authority will expect the applicant to show that there are policies and procedures in place to protect children from harm. Harm in this context is not limited to harm from gambling but includes wider child protection considerations. The efficiency of such policies and procedures will each be considered on their merits. However, they may include appropriate measures/training for staff as regards suspected truant school children on the premises, measures/training covering how staff would deal with

29 Page 118

Gambling Act 2005 – Draft Statement of Licensing Policy

Appendix B

unsupervised very young children being on the premises, or children causing perceived problems on/around the premises.

19.6 This licensing authority will also expect that applicants demonstrate a full understanding of the maximum stakes and prizes of the gambling that is permissible in unlicensed FECs; that the applicant has no relevant convictions and that staff are trained to have a full understanding of the maximum stakes and prizes.

20. (Alcohol) Licensed Premises Gaming Machine Permits - (Schedule 13 paragraph 4(1))

20.1 There is provision in the Act for premises licensed to sell alcohol for consumption on the premises, to automatically have 2 gaming machines, of categories C and/or D. The operator of the premises merely needs to notify the licensing authority and pay the prescribed fee. The licensing authority can remove the automatic authorisation in respect of any particular premises if:

• provision of the machines is not reasonably consistent with the pursuit of the licensing objectives;

• gaming has taken place on the premises that breaches a condition of section 282 of the Gambling Act (ie that written notice has been provided to the licensing authority, that a fee has been provided and that any relevant code of practice issued by the Gambling Commission about the location and operation of the machine has been complied with);

• the premises are mainly used for gaming; or

• an offence under the Gambling Act has been committed on the premises.

20.2 If the operator of alcohol licensed premises wishes to have more than 2 machines, then an application must be made for a permit and the licensing authority must consider that application based upon the licensing objectives, any guidance issued by the Gambling Commission issued under Section 25 of the Gambling Act 2005, and “such matters as they think relevant.” This licensing authority considers that “such matters” will be decided on a case by case basis but generally there will be regard to the need to protect children and vulnerable persons from being harmed or being exploited by gambling and will expect the applicant to satisfy the authority that there will be sufficient measures to ensure that under 18 year olds do not have access to the adult only gaming machines. Measures which will satisfy the authority that there will be no access may include the adult machines being in sight of the bar, or in the sight of staff who will monitor that the machines are not being used by those under 18. Notices and signage may also be helpful. As regards the protection of vulnerable persons,

30 Page 119

Gambling Act 2005 – Draft Statement of Licensing Policy

Appendix B

applicants may wish to consider the provision of information leaflets/helpline numbers for organisations such as GamCare.

20.3 This licensing authority recognises that some operators of alcohol licensed premises may apply for a premises licence for their non-alcohol licensed areas. Any such application would most likely need to be applied for, and dealt with as an Adult Gaming Centre premises licence.

20.4 The licensing authority may decide to grant the application with a smaller number of machines and/or a different category of machines than that applied for. Conditions (other than these) cannot be attached.

20.5 The holder of a permit must comply with any Code of Practice issued by the Gambling Commission about the location and operation of the machine.

21. Prize Gaming Permits - (Principles on Permits - Schedule 14 paragraph 8)

21.1 The Gambling Act 2005 states that a licensing authority may “prepare a statement of principles that they propose to apply in exercising their functions under this Schedule” which “may, in particular, specify matters that the licensing authority propose to consider in determining the suitability of the applicant for a permit”.

21.2 Prize gaming may be provided in bingo premises as a consequence of their bingo operating licence. Any type of prize gaming may be provided in adult gaming centres and licensed family entertainment centres. Unlicensed family entertainment centres may offer equal chance prize gaming under a gaming machine permit. Prize gaming without a permit may be provided by travelling fairs, provided that none of the gambling facilities at the fair amount to more than an ancillary amusement. Children and young people may participate in equal chance gaming only.

21.3 The applicant should set out the types of gaming that he or she is intending to offer and that the applicant should be able to demonstrate:

• that they understand the limits to stakes and prizes that are set out in Regulations;

• and that the gaming offered is within the law.

21.4 In making its decision on an application for this permit the licensing authority does not need to have regard to the licensing objectives but must have regard to any Gambling Commission guidance.

31 Page 120

Gambling Act 2005 – Draft Statement of Licensing Policy

Appendix B

21.5 However, there are conditions in the Gambling Act 2005 with which the permit holder must comply; the licensing authority cannot attach additional conditions. The conditions in the Act are:

• the limits on participation fees, as set out in regulations, must be complied with;

• all chances to participate in the gaming must be allocated on the premises on which the gaming is taking place and on one day; the game must be played and completed on the day the chances are allocated; and the result of the game must be made public in the premises on the day that it is played;

• the prize for which the game is played must not exceed the amount set out in regulations (if a money prize), or the prescribed value (if non-monetary prize); and

• participation in the gaming must not entitle the player to take part in any other gambling.

22. Club Gaming and Club Machines Permits

22.1 Members Clubs and Miners’ welfare institutes (but not Commercial Clubs) may apply for a Club Gaming Permit or a Clubs Gaming machines permit. The Club Gaming Permit will enable the premises to provide gaming machines (3 machines of categories B, C or D), equal chance gaming and games of chance as set-out in forthcoming regulations. A Club Gaming machine permit will enable the premises to provide gaming machines (up to 3 machines of categories B, C or D).

22.2 Gambling Commission Guidance states: "Members’ clubs must have at least 25 members and be established and conducted “wholly or mainly” for purposes other than gaming, unless the gaming is permitted by separate regulations. It is anticipated that this will cover bridge and whist clubs, which will replicate the position under the Gaming Act 1968. A members’ club must be permanent in nature, not established to make commercial profit, and controlled by its members equally. Examples include working men’s clubs, branches of Royal British Legion and clubs with political affiliations".

22.3 Licensing authorities may only refuse an application on the grounds that:

a) the applicant does not fulfil the requirements for a members’ or commercial club or miners’ welfare institute and therefore is not entitled to receive the type of permit for which it has applied;

32 Page 121

Gambling Act 2005 – Draft Statement of Licensing Policy

Appendix B

b) the applicant’s premises are used wholly or mainly by children and/or young persons;

c) an offence under the Act or a breach of a permit has been committed by the applicant while providing gaming facilities;

d) a permit held by the applicant has been cancelled in the previous ten years; or

e) an objection has been lodged by the Commission or the police.

22.4 There is also a ‘fast-track’ procedure available under the Act for premises which hold a Club Premises Certificate under the Licensing Act 2003 (Schedule 12 paragraph 10). As the Gambling Commission’s Guidance for local authorities states: "Under the fast- track procedure there is no opportunity for objections to be made by the Commission or the police, and the grounds upon which an authority can refuse a permit are reduced." and "The grounds on which an application under the process may be refused are:

a) that the club is established primarily for gaming, other than gaming prescribed under schedule 12;

b) that in addition to the prescribed gaming, the applicant provides facilities for other gaming; or

c) that a club gaming permit or club machine permit issued to the applicant in the last ten years has been cancelled”.

22.5 There are statutory conditions on club gaming permits that no child uses a category B or C machine on the premises and that the holder complies with any relevant provision of a code of practice about the location and operation of gaming machines.

23. Temporary Use Notices

23.1 There are a number of statutory limits as regards temporary use notices. As with "premises", the definition of "a set of premises" will be a question of fact in the particular circumstances of each notice that is given. In the Act "premises" is defined as including "any place". In considering whether a place falls within the definition of "a set of premises", licensing authorities will need to look at, amongst other things, the ownership/occupation and control of the premises...This is a new permission and licensing authorities will normally object to notices where it appears that their effect

33 Page 122

Gambling Act 2005 – Draft Statement of Licensing Policy

Appendix B

would be to permit regular gambling in a place that could be described as one set of premises".

24. Occasional Use Notices

24.1 The licensing authority has very little discretion as regards these notices aside from ensuring that the statutory limit of eight days in a calendar year is not exceeded. This licensing authority will though consider the definition of a ‘track’ and whether the applicant is permitted to avail him/herself of the notice.

34 Page 123

Gambling Act 2005 – Draft Statement of Licensing Policy

Appendix B

Appendix 1 – List of organisations consulted

All Parish councils within the Lancaster City Council area. Association of British Bookmakers,

BACTA,

Barracuda Bars Co. Ltd.,

Berwin Leighton Paisner, Solicitors,

Bet Fred,

Bold Pub Company,

British Beer and Pub Association,

British Casino Association,

British Holiday and Home Parks Association,

British Institute of Innkeeping,

British Transport Police,

Business in Sport and Leisure,

Carnforth Chamber of Trade,

Casino Operators Association,

Chameleon Pub Co. Ltd.,

Citizen’s Advice Bureau (Lancaster),

Citizen’s Advice Bureau (Morecambe),

35 Page 124

Gambling Act 2005 – Draft Statement of Licensing Policy

Appendix B

Classic Leisure (Northern) Ltd.,

Daniel Thwaites PLC,

Done Brothers (Cash Betting) Limited,

Enterprise Inns PLC,

Eurobet UK,

European Entertainment Corporation,

Federation of Small Businesses,

Frontierland,

Gala Coral Group,

Gamblers Anonymous UK,

Gamecare,

Gamestec Leisure Ltd.,

Greene King Retailing Ltd.,

Hammonds Solicitors,

HM Customs and Excise,

HM Customs,

Honeycombe Leisure PLC,

HSE,

Inns and Leisure Ltd.,

J.E.T. Limited,

36 Page 125

Gambling Act 2005 – Draft Statement of Licensing Policy

Appendix B

Jamieson Ltd.,

JD Wetherspoon,

Ladbrokes PLC,

Lancashire Constabulary, Chief Constable

Lancashire Fire and Rescue Service

Lancaster District Chamber of Trade, Commerce and Industry,

Lancaster Fire Service

Lancaster LVA

Lancaster Police Station

Leisure Link

Luminar North Ltd.,

Main Amusements Ltd.,

Megazone (Morecambe) Limited,

Mitchells and Butler Retail Ltd.,

Mitchells of Lancaster (Brewers) Ltd.,

Morecambe and Heysham Chamber of Trade and Commerce,

Morecambe Bay Hospitals NHS Trust,

Morecambe Fire Station,

Morecambe Hotels and Tourism Association,

37 Page 126

Gambling Act 2005 – Draft Statement of Licensing Policy

Appendix B

Mr. G. C. Cooper,

Mr. N. Slater,

Nobles Amusements,

Poppleston Allen, Solicitors,

Prize Coin Equipment,

Punch Taverns PLC,

Racecourse Association Ltd.,

Regent Inns PLC.,

Safeguarding Board of Lancashire County Council

Snappyland,

South Lakeland Caravans Ltd.,

Sprit Group Ltd.,

The Bingo Association,

Trading Standards,

Whitbread Group PLC,

William Hill Ltd.,

38 Page 127

Gambling Act 2005 – Draft Statement of Licensing Policy

Appendix B

Appendix 2 – Contact List (to be compiled once Policy has been finalised)

39 Page 128

Gambling Act 2005 – Draft Statement of Licensing Policy

Appendix B Appendix 3 - Categories of Gaming Machines Category of Machine Maximum Stake Maximum Prize A Unlimited Unlimited B1 £2 £4,000 B2 £100 £500 B3 £1 £500 B4 £1 £250 C 50p £35 10p or 30p when non- £5 cash or £8 non-monetary D monetary prize prize

Machine Category Premises Type A B1 B2 B3 B4 C D Regional casino Maximum of 1250 machines (machine/table Any combination of machines in categories A to D, within the total limit of 1250 ration of 25-1 up to (subject to table ratio) maximum) Large casino Maximum of 150 machines (machine/table Any combination of machines on categories B to D, within the total of 150 ration of 5-1 up to (subject to table ratio) maximum) Small casino Maximum of 80 machines (machine/table Any combination of machines in categories B to D, within the total limit of 80 ration of 2-1 up to (subject to table ratio) maximum) Pre-2005 Act casinos )no Maximum of 20 machines categories B to D or C or D machines instead machine/table ratio) Betting premises and tracks Maximum of 4 machines categories B2 to D occupied by Pool Betting Maximum of 4 Bingo Premises machines in category No limit C or D machines B3 or B4 Adult gaming Maximum of 4 No limit C or D machines centres machines in category

40 Page 129

Gambling Act 2005 – Draft Statement of Licensing Policy

Appendix B

Machine Category Premises Type A B1 B2 B3 B4 C D B3 or B4 Family entertainment No limit on category C or centre (with D machines premises licence) Family No limit on entertainment category D centre (with machines permit) Clubs or miners’ Maximum of 3 machines in categories welfare institutes B4 to D with permits 1 or 2 machines of Qualifying alcohol category C or D licensed premises automatic upon notification Qualifying alcohol licensed premises Number as specified on with gaming permit machine permit No limit on Travelling fair category D machines A B1 B2 B3 B4 C D

41 Page 130

Gambling Act 2005 – Draft Statement of Licensing Policy

Appendix B Appendix 4 - Delegation of Functions

Full Sub-committee of Matter to be dealt with Officers Council Licensing Act Committee

Final approval of three year X licensing policy Policy not to permit casinos X Fee setting X (when appropriate) Where representations have Where no representations Application for premises been received and not received/representations licences withdrawn have been withdrawn Where representations have Where no representations Application for a variation to a been received and not received/representations licence withdrawn have been withdrawn Where representations have Where no representations Application for a transfer of a been received from the received from the licence Commission Commission Where representations have Where no representations Application for a provisional been received and not received/representations statement withdrawn have been withdrawn Review of a premises licence X Where objections have Where no objections Application for club been made (and not made/objections have gaming/club machine permits withdrawn) been withdrawn Cancellation of club X gaming/club machine permits Applications for other permits X Cancellation of licensed premises gaming machine X permits Consideration of temporary X use notice Decision to give a counter notice to a temporary use X notice

X - Indicates at the lowest level to which decisions can be delegated.

42 Page 131

Gambling Act 2005 – Draft Statement of Licensing Policy

Appendix B Appendix 5 - Map of the District

43 Page 132

This page is intentionally left blank Page 133

LICENSING ACT COMMITTEE

GAMBLING ACT 2005 –STATEMENT OF GAMBLING LICENSING POLICY 16th November 2006

Report of Licensing Manager

PURPOSE OF REPORT

To update Members on the development of the Council’s Statement of Gambling Licensing policy following the period of consultation and to enable Members to consider the revised draft policy prior to its submission to full Council for approval on the 6th December 2006

This report is public

RECOMMENDATIONS

(1) To recommend full Council to approve the Statement of Gambling Licensing Policy at its meeting on the 6th December 2006.

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Members will recall that at its meeting on the 20th July 2006 the Committee considered a report regarding the statutory requirement for the Council to prepare and publish a statement of Gambling Licensing Policy. At that meeting, Members considered a draft policy and were informed of officers’ proposed consultation arrangements.

1.2 The consultation on the draft policy was held for a period of 12 weeks from the 21st July to the 16th October 2006. Responses were received from the following organisations:

1) Enterprise Inns PLC 2) British Beer and Pub Association 3) Gamblers Anonymous 4) The Racecourse Association Ltd 5) The Association of British Bookmakers

1.3 Members will recall that officers drafted this Council’s statement of Gambling Licensing Policy in liaison with the Cumbrian District Councils, and in particular South Lakeland District Council, given that the role of Licensing Manager is now shared with that Council

Page 134

1.4 A summary of the five responses received in respect of this Council’s draft policy is attached to this report at Appendix A. Where appropriate, recommended amendments are shown in the summary schedule. The Licensing Manager has worked closely with officers from the Cumbrian authorities in the appraisal of the responses to the draft policy consultation. The purpose of this is to ensure consistency in the development of policies throughout this area, an approach supported by LACORS (Local Authorities Co-ordinators of Regulatory Services). A copy of the revised draft policy is attached at Appendix B for Members’ consideration.

1.5 Approval of the policy is a function of the full Council, and Regulations require that an Authority’s statement of Gambling Licensing Policy must be published by the 3rd January 2007. To meet this deadline, the policy must be approved by Council at its meeting on the 6th December 2006.

1.6 Whilst the timetable for the implementation of the Gambling Act 2005 is generally still on schedule, the Government has announced a three month delay to the commencement date when local authorities will be required to start dealing with applications for gaming permits. This has now been re-scheduled for the 30th April 2007. Members will be kept informed of further developments regarding the implementation of the Act, and any training implications in the coming months.

2.0 Options and Options Analysis

2.1 The options open to the Committee are to recommend the policy to full Council as drafted, or with amendments. It is, however, essential to meet the statutory timetable that the policy be referred to Council on the 6th December.

2.2 The officers’ preferred option is that the policy be recommended to Council as drafted. Officers are satisfied that it meets the statutory requirements and that it is consistent with the policies of neighbouring authorities.

3.0 Conclusion

3.1 Members are requested to recommend the full Council to approve the attached draft statement of gambling licensing policy at its meeting on the 6th December 2006.

CONCLUSION OF IMPACT ASSESSMENT (including Diversity, Human Rights, Community Safety, Sustainability and Rural Proofing)

The Gambling Act 2005 promotes licensing objectives for the purpose of preventing crime and disorder and protecting children and vulnerable persons from harm.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

In view of the timetable for the implementation of the Gambling Act, no income will be received through licensing fees until 2007/08. As part of the revised budget process we have estimated £2,000 income. However, it is too early to predict income levels for this function since regulations governing the level of fees to be charged have not yet been published by the government. It is not yet clear whether the existing level of staffing within the licensing section will be sufficient to deal with the increased work load arising from the implementation of the Gambling Act and the situation may need to be reviewed in the coming months. Page 135

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

The legal implications are included in the report.

BACKGROUND PAPERS Contact Officer: Mr. S. Wearing Telephone: 01524 582317 Responses to consultation on Council’s draft E-mail: [email protected] statement of Gambling Licensing Policy. Ref: SW

Page 136

This page is intentionally left blank Page 137 Agenda Item 16

COUNCIL

Allocation of Seats to Political Groups 6th December 2006

Report of Chief Executive

PURPOSE OF REPORT

To advise Council of the calculations relating to the allocation of seats in accordance with the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 and the Council’s agreed protocol as a result of vacancies which have occurred in 2 Wards.

This report is public

RECOMMENDATIONS

(1) That in accordance with Section 15 of the Local Government and Housing Act, 1989 and Part 4 of the Local Government (Committees and Political Groups) Regulations, 1990, the City Council re-allocates the seats on Overview & Scrutiny, Regulatory, Standing and Joint Committees in accordance with the calculations set out in paragraphs 2.2, 2.3, 2.4 and 2.5 of the report.

(2) That nominations for appointment to Committees submitted by Group Administrators at the meeting be approved.

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Councillor Alex Stone will no longer be qualified as a local councillor for this District with effect from 1st December 2006, when the next Register of Electors comes into force. This is as a result of Councillor Stone’s initial qualification as a councillor being that he ‘was and continues to be a local government elector for the area of the authority’ and he has now moved outside the district boundary and will no longer be registered as a local government elector in this district once the new Register is published.

1.2 The Authority will therefore declare a vacancy in the University Ward with effect from 1st December 2006 in accordance with Section 87 of the Local Government Act 1972. However as this vacancy will occur within six months of the day on which the former Councillor would have retired (11th May 2007) a by-election will not be held to fill the vacancy. (Ref. S89(3) of the LGA 1972.)

1.3 Members will be aware that there is currently also a further vacancy which arose in the Skerton West Ward due to the sad death of Councillor Jean Jones on 26th October 2006. A by-election for this seat was called by 2 electors and will be held on 14th December. It is normal practice for any review under S15 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 to be delayed until after any resultant by-election. However on this occasion a review is required to be reported to the first Council meeting after the vacancy on 1st December (which will not result in a by-election) and the timing is such

Page 138

that the by-election for the vacancy which occurred on 26th October has not yet taken place. It has therefore been necessary to undertake the calculation on the basis of 58 Members.

1.4 A revised calculation of the Council’s PR based on 59 Members will be undertaken following the by-election and reported to the next meeting of Council on 7th February 2006.

1.5 The revised calculations in relation to numbers from 1 to 20 are attached at Appendix A for information. Details of the calculations in respect of the current decision-making structure and agreed groupings of committees are set out in paragraph 2 below.

1.6 Members are requested to approve the calculation in order the enable adjustments to be made to appointments to committees to reflect the revised make-up of the Council.

2.0 Calculations

2.1 Compilation of the Council

Labour 19 Independents 12 Conservatives 11 Liberal Democrats 7 Greens 7 Non-aligned Free Independent (1) 1 Non-aligned Free Independent (2) 1 58 2.2 Overview & Scrutiny

2.2.1 The PR Calculation for a single 9 Member Committee is as follows:

L: 19 ( x 9/58) = 2.9482 = 3 I: 12 ( x 9/58) = 1.8620 = 2 C: 11 ( x 9/58) = 1.7068 = 2 LD: 7 ( x 9/58) = 1.0862 = 1 G: 7 ( x 9/58) = 1.0862 = 1 FI/1 : 1 ( x 9/58) = 0.1551 = 0 FI/2: 1 ( x 9/58) = 0.1551 = 0 9

2.2.2 Total number of seats allocated per group (comprising Overview & Scrutiny Committee and Budget & Performance Panel):

2 x 9 Members = 18 (-:- 58 = 0.3103 seats per Member

L: 19 x 0.3103 = 5.8957 = 6 I: 12 x 0.3103 = 3.7236 = 4 C: 11 x 0.3103 = 3.4133 = 4 LD: 7 x 0.3103 = 2.1721 = 2 G: 7 x 0.3103 = 2.1721 = 2 FI/1: 1 x 0.3103 = 0.3103 = 0 FI/2: 1 x 0.3103 = 0.3103 = 0 18

Page 139

2.2.3 This changes the previous allocation of 6:4:3:3:2 whereby the Conservative Group were required to pass one of the Overview & Scrutiny seats to the Liberal Democrats. It will therefore be necessary for a Liberal Democrat seat of the Budget & Performance Panel to be passed to the Conservative Group.

2.3 Regulatory and Timetabled Committees of Council

2.3.1 The PR Calculation for individual 20 Member, 15 Member and 7 Member Committees is as follows:

i) 20 Member

L: 19 ( x 20/58) = 6.5517 = 7 I: 12 ( x 20/58) = 4.1379 = 4 C: 11 ( x 20/58) = 3.7931 = 4 LD: 7 ( x 20/58) = 2.4137 = 2* G: 7 ( x 20/58) = 2.4137 = 3* FI/1: 1 ( x 20/58) = 0.3448 = 0 FI/2: 1 ( x 20/58) = 0.3448 = 0 20

*allocated by drawing lots supervised by the Mayor in accordance with the Council’s agreed protocol.

ii) 15 Member

L: 19 ( x 15/58) = 4.9137 = 5 I: 12 ( x 15/58) = 3.1034 = 3 C: 11 ( x 15/58) = 2.8448 = 3 LD: 7 ( x 15/58) = 1.8103 = 2 G: 7 ( x 15/58) = 1.8103 = 2 FI/1 : 1 ( x 15/58) = 0.2586 = 0 FI/2: 1 ( x 15/58) = 0.2586 = 0 15

iii) 7 Member (x 3)

L: 19 ( x 7/58) = 2.2931 = 2 I: 12 ( x 7/58) = 1.4482 = 2 C: 11 ( x 7/58) = 1.3275 = 1 LD: 7 ( x 7/58) = 0.8448 = 1 G: 7 ( x 7/58) = 0.8448 = 1 FI/1: 1 ( x 7/58) = 0.1206 = 0 FI/2: 1 ( x 7/58) = 0.1206 = 0 7

(The PR calculations for 15 and 7 remain unchanged when stand alone, that for 20 changes from 7:4:4:3:2 to 7:4:4:2:3 as a result of drawing lots between the Liberal Democrat and Green Groups)

2.3.2 Total seats to be allocated per group, comprising Planning and Highways Regulatory, Licensing Act, Licensing Regulatory, Personnel and Audit Committees

20 + 15 + 7 + 7 +7 = 56 ( -:- 58) = 0.9655 seats per member

Page 140

L: 19 x 0.9655 = 18.3445 = 18 I: 12 x 0.9655 = 11.5860 = 11 C: 11 x 0.9655 = 10.6205 = 11 LD: 7 x 0.9655 = 6.7585 = 7 G: 7 x 0.9655 = 6.7585 = 7 FI/1: 1 x 0.9655 = 0.9655 = 1 FI/2: 1 x 0.9655 = 0.9655 = 1 56

2.3.4. Adjustments required: The previous allocation being 19:11:10:7:7:1:1 this requires the Labour Group to pass 1 seat on one of the Committees included in the Grouping to the Conservative Group.

2.4 Other Standing Committees

2.4.1 Remaining Standing Committees currently constituted with a PR of 7 are the Appeals, Appraisal, Council Business and Standards Committees. The PR calculation remains unchanged at 2:2:1:1:1.

2.4.2 The Local Governance Committee is a time limited Committee established with a membership of 9. The PR for this remains unchanged at 3:2:2:1:1.

2.5 Joint Committees

2.5.1 The Lancashire Locals – Lancaster District Joint Committee has a PR of 10. The PR for this remains unchanged at 4:2:2:1:1.

3.0 Conclusion

3.1 Members are requested to approve the calculations and to make the necessary amended nominations to Committees.

CONCLUSION OF IMPACT ASSESSMENT (including Diversity, Human Rights, Community Safety, Sustainability and Rural Proofing) There are no direct implications as a result of this report.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

There are no financial implications as a direct result of this report.

SECTION 151 OFFICER’S COMMENTS

The Section 151 Officer has been consulted and has no further comments.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

This report has been prepared in accordance with the provisions of Section 15 of the Local Government and Housing Act, 1989 and Part 4 of the Local Government (Committees and Political Groups) Regulations 1990.

Page 141

MONITORING OFFICER’S COMMENTS

The Monitoring Officer has been consulted and has no further comments.

BACKGROUND PAPERS Contact Officer: Gillian Noall Telephone: 01524 582060 Proportional Representation calculation file. E-mail: [email protected] Affiliation to Political Groups file.

Page 142

APPENDIX A P.R. LIST

Labour Indep Cons Lib Dems Green 1 = 1 0 0 0 0 2 = 1 1 0 0 0 3 = 1 1 1 0 0 4 = 1 1 1 1 0 5 = 2 1 1 1 0 6 = 2 1 1 1 1 7 = 2 2 1 1 1 8 = 3 2 1 1 1 9 = 3 2 2 1 1 10 = 4 2 2 1 1 11 = 4 2 2 1** 2** 12 = 4 3 2 2 1 13 = 4 3 2 2 2 14* = 4 3 3 2 2 15 = 5 3 3 2 2 16 = 6 3 3 2 2 17 = 6 4 3 2 2 18* = 6 4 4 2 2 19 = 6 4 4 3** 2** 20 = 7 4 4 2** 3**

*Figures in bold are those which have changed since the last calculation was carried out. **As a result of lots drawn under the supervision of the Mayor

Labour 19 Independent 12 Conservative 11 Liberal Democrats 7 Green 7 Non-aligned Free Independent (1) 1 Non- aligned Free Independent (2) 1

TOTAL 58

As at 1.12.06 Page 143 Agenda Item 19

COUNCIL

Public Speaking At Cabinet 6th December 2006

Report of the Monitoring Officer

PURPOSE OF REPORT

To consider public speaking at meetings of Cabinet in order that the constitution can be amended. This report is public.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That Council approves the amendment of the City Council’s Constitution as set out in the report.

1.0 Report

1.1 During consideration of the democratic renewal of full Council, the Audit Committee expressed a view that public engagement could be enhanced by allowing some involvement in Cabinet meetings. It was agreed: -

• That Cabinet be requested to investigate introducing the opportunity for public participation at Cabinet meetings (Minute 16 refers).

1.2 Cabinet, at its meeting held on 5th September 2006, noted that the current position is that there is no provision within the City Council’s Constitution for members of the public to speak at Cabinet meetings, whereas there are other Council meetings where public speaking is allowed, under certain circumstances. At Cabinet members of the public currently have only the right to attend meetings, subject only to the requirement that they must leave the meeting when confidential and exempt items are being considered.

1.3 After deliberating the matter fully and considering a number of options Cabinet resolved that the following be introduced and reviewed after a 6 month period of operation:

“(1) That Council (or the Council Business Committee) be recommended to approve appropriate changes to the Constitution in order to implement a system of public participation at Cabinet meetings on a similar basis to that currently operated at Planning Committee, i.e. members of the public may speak on issues included on the Agenda, with questions/comments from the public prior to the commencement of each item. Having received notice, the agenda would be re-ordered to take items with public participation first, with the following amendments: -

Page 144

• There being a maximum of 10 speakers per Cabinet meeting on a first come first served basis with a maximum of 3 minutes per speaker;

• That there be a maximum of 3 speakers on each item of business, but if there are less than 10 speakers in total to speak at Cabinet then a maximum of 4 people be allowed to speak on a particular item of business on a first come first served basis and at the discretion of the Chairman;

• Any group of persons with similar views should elect a spokesperson to speak on their behalf to avoid undue repetition of similar points. Spokespersons should identify in writing on whose behalf they are speaking as part of the registration process. The Head of Democratic Services be authorised to ask speakers to consolidate their views if there are more than 3 persons in the group;

• That the procedure be reviewed after 6 months of operation.

(2) That, subject to (1) above, the Monitoring Officer be requested to report to Council (or the Council Business Committee) on the necessary amendments to the City Council’s Constitution to enable implementation as soon as practicable.

(3) That, subject to (1) and (2) above, the Head of Democratic Services be requested to take all necessary steps in accordance with the City Council’s Communications Guidelines to publicise the scheme in order to maximise public involvement.

(4) That Cabinet would support the idea of a public question time for Cabinet Members, but recognises the practical difficulties outlined in the report. It asks Officers to investigate the possibility of a separate Question Time event on similar lines to the County Council "Cabinet in the Community" events and to report back.”

1.4 As it is recommended to amend an Article contained within the Constitution it has been necessary to report this matter to Full Council rather than the Council Business Committee. Council is, therefore, requested to consider the recommendations of Cabinet and, if in agreement, make the necessary amendments to the City Council’s Constitution in order to enable members of the public to speak at meetings of Cabinet.

2.0 Proposal Details

2.1 In order to implement public speaking at meetings of Cabinet a number of Constitutional amendments will be needed and require the approval of Full Council. Therefore, it is recommended that the following parts of the City Council’s Constitution are amended: -

Part 1 (Summary and Explanation), Page 5, Citizens’ Rights (vii);

Insert after attend meetings of Cabinet “and speak on items on the Agenda in accordance with Cabinet’s Public Participation Scheme.”

Part 2, Article 3 (Citizens and the Council), Page 7, Participation (c);

Page 145

Insert after the paragraph referring to Council the following and e-order roman numerals:

“(ii) Meetings of Cabinet

Citizens may participate at meetings of Cabinet in accordance with Cabinet’s Public Participation Scheme.”

Part 4, Section 4, (Cabinet Procedure Rules) Page 39, insertion of a new paragraph 2.7 “Rights of the Public to Speak at Cabinet”, with the remaining paragraphs being appropriately re-numbered.

2.7 Rights of the Public to Speak at Cabinet

(i) Members of the public are permitted to speak on issues included on the Cabinet Agenda, with questions/comments from the public prior to the commencement of each item.

(ii) Notice of the wish to speak must be registered with Democratic Services in writing or by telephone before 12 Noon on the Thursday before Cabinet meets.

(iii) It is the responsibility of the person wishing to speak to find out the appropriate date that Cabinet will consider the item of business that they wish to speak on. This information can be obtained from Democratic Services. Late requests to speak at Cabinet will not be considered.

(iv) Any request to speak must include the person’s name, address and contact telephone number, together with details on the item they wish to speak on. If possible a brief summary of the views of the person should be provided.

(v) Persons who have registered to speak should be in attendance 30 minutes prior to the commencement of the meeting to enable a list of speakers present to be passed to the Chairman. Any latecomers who have not confirmed their intention to speak on the morning of the meeting will only be allowed to speak at the discretion of the Chairman.

(vi) Democratic Services, having received notice from persons wishing to speak will re-order the agenda to enable items with public participation to be considered first.

(vii) There will be a maximum of 10 speakers per Cabinet meeting on a first come first served basis with a maximum of 3 minutes per speaker.

(viii) There will be a maximum of 3 speakers on each item of business, but if there are less than 10 speakers in total to speak at Cabinet then a maximum of 4 people be allowed to speak on a particular item of business on a first come first served basis, at the discretion of the Chairman;

(ix) Any group of persons with similar views should elect a spokesperson to speak on their behalf to avoid undue repetition of similar points. Page 146

Spokespersons should identify in writing on whose behalf they are speaking as part of the registration process. The Head of Democratic Services to be authorised to ask speakers to consolidate their views if there are more than 3 persons in the group;

2.2 Members are asked to agree to the amendment of the above parts of the City Council’s Constitution and the suggested wording.

3.0 Venues for Cabinet Meetings

3.1 In considering the above the issue of the possible need to alter venues for meetings of Cabinet has also been raised. The current Procedure Rule restricts meetings being held in Lancaster and Morecambe Town Halls, with meetings alternating between the 2 venues. As Members will be aware there is a need for public engagement, particularly for events such as a possible future Cabinet in the Community event and/or Local Democracy week. Events such as these will encourage members of the public to attend more innovative events and it is suggested that the Constitution be amended to enable such meetings to be held in alternative venues. Council is requested to consider adding to the first sentence the following wording to Cabinet Procedure Rule 1.6: -

• or at other venues to be agreed by Cabinet.

3.2 Any venue used by the City Council would have to comply with accessibility/DDA requirements.

4 Conclusion

4.1 The proposal to allow public speaking at meetings of Cabinet would ensure that there is an element of consistency with other Council meetings. It would allow members of the public to speak at meetings of Cabinet, subject to giving appropriate notice, currently for Planning this is by 12 noon on the Thursday prior to the meeting with a time limit for speakers. The proposals, if approved, would encourage more public involvement in future meetings of the City Council’s Cabinet meetings.

RELATIONSHIP TO POLICY FRAMEWORK

None directly.

CONCLUSION OF IMPACT ASSESSMENT (including Diversity, Human Rights, Community Safety, Sustainability and Rural Proofing)

If approved the proposal to allow speaking will enable citizens to make their views known prior to a decision being taken.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

There are unlikely to be significant financial implications as a result of this report.

A change in venue may incur hire charges and there may be costs associated with external speakers. These will however be met from existing budgets for democratic representation.

Page 147

SECTION 151 OFFICER’S COMMENTS

The Section 151 Officer has been consulted and has no further comments to add.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

Any meeting must be held in accordance with the requirements of the City Council’s Constitution and Access to Information legislation.

MONITORING OFFICER’S COMMENTS

The report sets out the recommendations of the Monitoring Officer in accordance with Article 15.02 of the Constitution.

BACKGROUND PAPERS Contact Officer: Stephen Metcalfe Cabinet report and Minutes dated 5th Telephone: 01524 582073 September 2006. E-mail: [email protected]

Page 148

This page is intentionally left blank Page 149 Agenda Item 20

COUNCIL

Appointments to Outside Bodies, Partnerships and Boards 6th December 2006

Report of Chief Executive

PURPOSE OF REPORT

To enable Council to determine the basis for appointment to an outside body.

This report is public

RECOMMENDATIONS

(1) That Council notes the discontinuation of the current Regeneration Building Block of the Lancaster District Strategic Partnership and its replacement by the existing Lancaster District Vision Board.

(2) That consideration be given to amending Council representation on the Vision Board in recognition of this change of role.

1.0 Introduction

1.1 In October 2003 it was agreed that Council would determine the basis on which all appointments to outside bodies and partnerships is made. Unless otherwise requested by the outside body concerned, appointments are made to the date of the next City Council elections, subject to confirmation at each Annual Council meeting.

1.2 In establishing the Council Business Committee on 12th April 2006, Council resolved that the Terms of Reference of the Business Committee should include the appointment of outside body representatives but that the agreement on the basis of such appointments remains with full Council.

2.0 Proposal – Lancaster District Regeneration Vision Board

1.1 The Lancaster and District Regeneration Vision Board is a joint initiative between the North West Regional Development Agency and the City Council designed to produce an economic regeneration strategy for the area that is the result of the public and private sectors working together.

1.2 The initiative was launched in late 2003 with Cabinet endorsing an initial membership that encompassed the majority of the private sector interests in the district, along with Higher Education representation, the two MPs and the NWRDA. The City Council has been represented by the Leader of the Council and the Chief Executive with the Corporate Director (Regeneration) as advisor. As the work has progressed, representation from additional sectors has been added to the Board to ensure full

Page 150

coverage of all economic interests in the area and to deal with vacancies as they arose. Council membership was agreed by Cabinet at its meeting on 22 October 2003.

1.3 The work of the Vision Board has been supported financially by the NWRDA to allow co-ordination of the work of the Board and the commissioning of a number of studies that provides the evidence base for the Strategy. The NWRDA, as the lead agency in the region for economic regeneration, has commissioned Vision Boards in Preston and Burnley as well as Lancaster District and sees them as a key element of contributing to sub-regional delivery of the Regional Economic Strategy. The importance of the Vision Board to Lancaster District is highlighted by the fact that the District is peripheral to the Northern Way initiative that seeks to link major conurbations and action across the north to work jointly to reduce the GDP gap between the north and the south of the UK. The Northern Way has, as one of its eight city regions, the central Lancashire area encompassing Preston, Chorley, South Ribble, Blackburn, Burnley and Blackpool. Lancaster District sits at the edge of this geographically, which could result in the district being marginalised if it were not to have an alternative vehicle for agreeing joint working with the NWRDA. The existence of the Vision Board helps the district's profile with the NWRDA by presenting a set of economic regeneration priorities in which the NWRDA and others can consider investing.

1.4 Members will recall that the Vision Board’s Economic Vision for the District has recently been produced and it has now been proposed that this body should in future take on the role of the Regeneration Building Block under the umbrella of the LSP.

1.5 Member representation is currently limited to the Leader of the Council, but with this shift of emphasis to the role of an LSP Building Block Members may wish to consider amending this representation in line with other Building Blocks of the LSP. Council have appointed a Member of Cabinet and a Member of the Overview & Scrutiny Committee to all other Building Blocks. This includes the current LSP Regeneration Building Block originally established but which has not ever met and which this body will replace. The Chief Executive would continue to attend the Vision Board but in an advisory capacity.

2.0 Options

2.1 Council has the option to make any appointment on a PR basis or by virtue of a Councillor’s position, such as a Cabinet Member, Committee Chairman or Ward Councillor. Where an appointment is made on the basis of PR, the appointing Group(s) may notify the Head of Democratic Services in writing of their appointment without the need for further Council approval. Where necessary, Cabinet or other Committee representatives are referred to the relevant body for appointment.

2.2 The options for consideration are:

(i) That 1 or 2 Members be appointed by virtue of their position. Currently Council has appointed a Cabinet Member and Overview & Scrutiny Committee Member to the LSP Regeneration Building Block. Cabinet appointed the Leader to attend meetings of the Vision Board along with the Chief Executive during its formation.

(ii) That 2 Members be appointed on a PR basis – currently 1:1 (Labour and Independent).

Page 151

CONCLUSION OF IMPACT ASSESSMENT (including Diversity, Human Rights, Community Safety, Sustainability and Rural Proofing)

There are no direct implications as a result of this report.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Members of outside bodies are entitled to travel expenses. Any extra costs resulting from an additional Member appointment are not likely to be significant can be funded from within existing budgets.

SECTION 151 OFFICER’S COMMENTS

The Section 151 Officer has been consulted and has no further comments.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

Legal Services have been consulted and have no comments.

MONITORING OFFICER’S COMMENTS

The Monitoring Officer has been consulted and has no further comments.

BACKGROUND PAPERS Contact Officer: Gillian Noall Telephone: 01524 582060 Representation on Outside Bodies File. E-mail: [email protected]

Page 152

This page is intentionally left blank Page 153 Agenda Item 21

COUNCIL

Urgent Business Report

6th December 2006

Report of Chief Executive

PURPOSE OF REPORT

To advise Members of action taken by the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Leaders of each Political Party and the Mayor.

This report is public

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the actions taken by the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Leaders of each Political Party and the Mayor in accordance with the Scheme of Delegation, in relation to the following matter, be noted:

(1) Removal of exempt status imposed on reports to Council.

1.0 Introduction

The leaders of each Political Party were requested to consider agreeing to the removal of exempt status on the following reports which it was formerly resolved should be treated as exempt and therefore not made publicly available in accordance with Access to Information legislation:

• Report to Council on 17th December 2006 – Pension of Former Town Clerk, Mr William Pearson (also submitted to the Town Clerk Pensions Committee. • Exempt Minute 6 of the Town Clerk Pensions Committee – 25th February 2004.

A request was received for a copy of the above documents (amongst other related material) under Freedom of Information legislation.

At the time the reports and minute were treated as exempt by virtue of the fact that they contained some financial and personal information and included legal advice, which if made publicly available may have affected the Council’s position. However on examining the content of the documents there is now no good reason for the reports to continue to be treated as exempt from publication, indeed they do not meet the criteria for being treated as exempt under the Freedom of Information Act, provided that the small amount of personal data is removed to comply with Data Protection legislation.

A decision was required as a matter or urgency in order to comply with the requirement of the Freedom of Information Act to respond within 20 working days.

Page 154

2.0 Conclusion

Approval was given to the above action, which is required to be reported to Council in accordance with the Constitution.

CONCLUSION OF IMPACT ASSESSMENT (including Diversity, Human Rights, Community Safety, Sustainability and Rural Proofing) Not applicable.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

There are no financial implications arising directly from this report.

SECTION 151 OFFICER’S COMMENTS

The Section 151 Officer has been consulted and has no further comments to add.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

The decision has been taken in accordance with the Constitution to enable to Council to fully comply with the requirements of Freedom of Information legislation.

MONITORING OFFICER’S COMMENTS

The Monitoring Officer has been consulted and has no further comments.

BACKGROUND PAPERS Contact Officer: Gillian Noall Letters to the Leaders of each Political Party Telephone: 01524 582060 and the Mayor. E-mail: [email protected]

Public DocumentPage 155 Pack Agenda Item 22

CABINET 10.00 A.M. 10TH OCTOBER 2006

PRESENT:- Councillors Ian Barker (Chairman), Jon Barry, Eileen Blamire, Abbott Bryning, Gina Dowding, Janice Hanson, Pat Quinton, Ron Sands and Alex Stone

Apologies for Absence

Councillor John Gilbert

Officers in attendance:-

Mark Cullinan Chief Executive Roger Muckle Corporate Director (Finance and Performance) John Donnellon Corporate Director (Regeneration) Peter Loker Corporate Director (Community Services) Nadine Muschamp Head of Financial Services Jane Allder Head of Information and Customer Services Graham Cox Head of Property Services James Doble Principal Democratic Support Officer Sharon Marsh Democratic Services

52 MINUTES

The Minutes of the meeting held on 5th September 2006 were signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

53 ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS AUTHORISED BY THE LEADER

There were no items of urgent business.

54 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Councillor Peter Robinson declared a personal interest as a member of the Friends of Regents Park, with regard to Minute No.58, the Children’s Centre, Option Appraisal (Morecambe’s West End).

Councillor Abbott Bryning declared a personal and prejudicial interest with regard to Minute No.56, the Storey Institute in his capacity as a member of the Storey Institute Board, he was appointed to this position by Cabinet.

55 2006/07 CAPTIAL INVESTMENT STRATEGY UPDATE

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Ian Barker)

Cabinet considered a report to update Members on the position regarding the progress on the Capital Programme and the overall funding position, in line with the requirements of the Capital Investment Strategy, and to gain Cabinet’s approval for the draft capital investment principles for the period from 2007/08 onwards. Page 156 CABINET 10TH OCTOBER 2006

The Chief Executive declared a personal interest in Luneside East during the discussion on the report.

The options and options analysis, including risk assessment and the Officer preferred option, were set out in the report as follows:

With regard to the current year, the options were:

a) To approve the updated programme as set out in Appendix A of the report and the way forward as set out in section 3.4 (see below for section 3.4).

The main risks attached to this course of action are that liabilities arising cannot be met, without having a greater impact on other council spending plans. The proposal not to allocate the borrowing leeway does help mitigate the position, and the further review in December should give sufficient time to take any remedial action if required. There is also the risk, however, that in the meantime some schemes will progress, leaving slightly less scope for achieving savings through cutting the programme.

3.4 Overall it is felt that there will be significant extra cost pressures arising from the issues, in the current year onwards, though in the slightly longer term the potential for generating capital receipts should help the situation significantly. For now though, the recommended way forward is as follows:

• The updated 2006/07 programme as set out at Appendix A should be approved.

• No firm allocation of borrowing leeway should be made at this time. This is to provide flexibility for known, but un-quantified liabilities arising mainly in connection with the Luneside project.

• With regard to the 5-year estimated shortfall of £114K, no scheme cuts or deferrals are recommended, as there is sufficient slippage and flexibility in the funding position to manage the 2006/07 position.

• Further investigations into the identified scheme overspends should be undertaken and other potential sources of funding should be identified, for reporting initially into PRT meetings.

• Works will continue on firming up the position regarding Luneside, accommodation and the buildings conditions survey. In the meantime any updates will be fed into the relevant PRT meeting and Star Chamber as appropriate.

b) To defer approval of the programme pending more investigation of scheme overspends and work being to identify alternative funding sources, and / or to consider deferring or cutting schemes that have not yet started.

As the investigative work is proposed anyway, there is no tangible benefit in deferring the programme. The recommended programme as set out represents best information available at this time and therefore the Head of Financial Page 157 CABINET 10TH OCTOBER 2006

Services would advise reflecting this in the financial plans of the Council.

In considering whether to defer or cut schemes that have not yet started (as identified on Appendix C of the report), attention is drawn to the Financial Regulations, which state:

Cabinet may meet increases in the cost of schemes by transferring savings from elsewhere within the Capital Programme, subject to no scheme being completely (or effectively) removed. Any such transfers must also not result in the failure to achieve one or more of the detailed actions and objectives set out in the Council’s Policy Framework.

This control exists to ensure that Cabinet undertakes capital investment in line with the budget and policy framework set by Council. Should Cabinet wish to remove any schemes, this would need to be referred on to Council for approval. Risks would very much depend on the schemes being considered. Of the schemes not yet started, approximately £330K is due to funded from Council resources but they all relate to refurbishment of existing facilities. For this reason, it is not recommended that these schemes be cut.

The Officer preferred options were to approve:

- the updated capital programme as set out at Appendix A of the report and the way forward as set out at section 3.4;

- the draft capital investment and funding principles as set out in section 5of the report; and

- that individual Cabinet Members be encouraged to strengthen capital performance review, as set out at the end of paragraph 2.2 of the report.

It was moved by Councillor Ian Barker and seconded by Councillor Alex Stone: -

“That the recommendations, as set out in the report, be approved. “

Resolved:

(8 Members were in favour of the motion and 1 Member abstained (Councillor Barry)).

(1) That the current position regarding the Capital Programme and funding position be noted, and that the updated Capital Programme as set out at Appendix A and the way forward as set out in section 3.4 of the report as set out below be approved.

• The updated 2006/07 programme as set out at Appendix A should be approved.

• No firm allocation of borrowing leeway should be made at this time. This is to provide flexibility for known, but un-quantified liabilities arising mainly in connection with the Luneside project.

• With regard to the 5-year estimated shortfall of £114K, no scheme cuts or deferrals are recommended, as there is sufficient slippage and flexibility Page 158 CABINET 10TH OCTOBER 2006

in the funding position to manage the 2006/07 position.

• Further investigations into the identified scheme overspends should be undertaken and other potential sources of funding should be identified, for reporting initially into PRT meetings.

(2) That the draft capital investment and funding principles as set out in section 5 of the report be approved and that they form the initial basis on which Cabinet develops its capital programme proposals for the five year period from 2007/08 onwards, subject to:

- a separate review of potential asset sales being reported back to the December Cabinet meeting;

- the outcome of the position regarding Luneside East and any other potential changes in investment needs; and

- the levels of any prudential borrowing being reviewed regularly throughout the budget process, as the revenue position develops.

(3) That individual Cabinet Members familiarise themselves with capital schemes falling within their own portfolio areas and seek regular robust progress information through the quarterly performance review team meetings.

Officers responsible for effecting the decision: Corporate Director (Finance & Performance) Head of Financial Services

Reason for making the decision:

The decision was made as, whilst there are some significant variances and potential extra liabilities arising connection with the 2006/07 programme, it is felt that these can be managed for now on an interim basis but they are expected to impact on future years. The existing investment principles are felt to be a good basis on which to build the 2007/08 – 2011/12 strategy, with some additional work being undertaken on key areas such as asset sales.

56 STOREY INSTITUTE

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Abbott Bryning)

Cabinet considered a report that updated Members on the outcome of the Heritage Lottery Funding (HLF) application and to advise on the options for taking the Storey project forward. Members noted that they had received a number of correspondence with regard to this issue and had regard to them in making their decision.

Members discussed this item in detail alongside the report on the Capital Programme. Page 159 CABINET 10TH OCTOBER 2006

Cabinet were advised that any proposed changes to the medium term financial strategy would require approval by Council.

The options and options analysis, including risk assessment and the Officer preferred option, were set out in the report as follows:

a. To proceed with the contingency project;

b. Seek to market the building through a development agreement;

c. Dispose of the building on the open market.

The Officer preferred option was option B.

It was moved by Councillor Ian Barker and seconded by Councillor Eileen Blamire: -

“(1) That Cabinet notes the rejection of the HLF application and the implications for the Storey project. It believes that to proceed with the contingency scheme would represent an unacceptable financial risk to the Council given the pressures on the capital programme and the competing demands on the leeway provision. It further believes that with the reduced specification and the works that are omitted in the contingency scheme, there is a significant risk that the business plan targets will not be met.

(2) Cabinet nevertheless recognises the value to the community of the public space at the Storey and the value of jobs in the creative industries. It wishes to continue to pursue some of the objectives of the Storey Creative Industries Centre (SCIC) project.

(3) Cabinet, therefore, resolves to seek a development partner for the building. The key public benefits that the Council will seek are the continued use of the Gallery and maintenance of and public access to the Storey Garden.

(4) In addition Cabinet resolves to approach the Arts Council and the SRB Board to see under what conditions they are willing to continue their grant to promote creative industries. It is willing to use any receipt from the building as matched funding for such purposes.”

Councillors Ian Barker and Eileen Blamire accepted the following by way of a friendly amendment from Councillor Alex Stone.

“If a viable business plan can be produced for the building Cabinet would be prepared to consider further prudential borrowing.”

By way of an amendment it was moved by Councillor Jon Barry and seconded by Councillor Gina Dowding.

“That the text of (1) to (5) as above be deleted and that the following text be inserted:

(1) That Cabinet agrees option 1 as set out in the report.

(2) That Cabinet allocates leeway funding of £0.5million to the Storey Institute Page 160 CABINET 10TH OCTOBER 2006

Creative Industry Project which could be reduced if other funds were made available.

(3) That officers take the necessary procedural and financial steps to sort out the Capital Programme and secure the necessary external grant funding for the Storey Institute.

Upon being put to the vote four members voted in favour of the amendment (Councillors Barry, Dowding, Quinton and Stone), four members voted against the amendment (Councillors Barker, Blamire, Hanson and Sands) and one member abstained (Councillor Bryning). The Chairman then exercised his casting vote against the amendment and the amendment was declared lost.

Councillors Ian Barker and Eileen Blamire accepted the following by way of a friendly amendment from Councillor Gina Dowding.

“That the SCIC Board be invited to be involved in the future development of the building and the selection of the preferred development partner.”

Members then voted upon the substantive motion as follows:

Resolved :

(6 Members voted in favour (Councillors Barker, Blamire, Hanson, Quinton, Sands and Stone), 3 members abstained (Councillors Barry, Bryning and Dowding.))

(1) That Cabinet notes the rejection of the HLF application and the implications for the Storey project. It believes that to proceed with the contingency scheme would represent an unacceptable financial risk to the Council given the pressures on the capital programme and the competing demands on the leeway provision. It further believes that with the reduced specification and the works that are omitted in the contingency scheme, there is a significant risk that the business plan targets will not be met.

(2) That Cabinet nevertheless recognises the value to the community of the public space at the Storey and the value of jobs in the creative industries. It wishes to continue to pursue some of the objectives of the Storey Creative Industries Centre (SCIC) project.

(3) That Cabinet therefore resolves to seek a development partner for the building. The key public benefits that the Council will seek are the continued use of the Gallery and maintenance of and public access to the Storey Garden. The SCIC Board be invited to be involved in the future development of the building and the selection of the preferred development partner.

(4) In addition Cabinet resolves to approach the Arts Council and the SRB board to see under what conditions they are willing to continue their grant to promote creative industries. It is willing to use any receipt from the building as matched funding for such purposes.

(5) If a viable business plan can be produced for the building Cabinet would be prepared to consider further prudential borrowing. Page 161 CABINET 10TH OCTOBER 2006

Officers responsible for effecting the decision:

Corporate Director (Regeneration).

Reason for making the decision:

The decision has been made as Cabinet believes that to proceed with the contingency scheme would represent an unacceptable financial risk to the Council given the pressures on the capital programme and the competing demands on the leeway provision. It further believes that with the reduced specification and the works that are omitted in the contingency scheme, there is a significant risk that the business plan targets will not be met.

57 2006/07 CAPITAL PROGRAMME UPDATE - INCLUSION OF MELLISHAW PARK TRAVELLERS SITE REFURBISHMENT SCHEME

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor John Gilbert)

Cabinet considered a report that updated Members on the successful bid for grant assistance for improvements to Mellishaw Park Travellers Site and give approval for the work to be included within the Capital Programme for 2006/2007.

The options and options analysis, including risk assessment and the Officer preferred option, were set out in the report as follows:

a. The Mellishaw Park Travellers Site Improvement Scheme is approved as a funded scheme within the City Council’s 2006/2007 Capital Programme.

b. The Mellishaw Park Travellers Site Improvement Scheme is not approved as a funded scheme within the City Council’s 2006/2007 Capital Programme, and the Grant is returned to the DCLG.

The Officer preferred option was option A.

It was moved by Councillor Gina Dowding and seconded by Councillor Ian Barker: -

“That the recommendations, as set out in the report, be approved. “

Resolved unanimously:

(1) That the successful bid is noted.

(2) That approval be given for the Mellishaw Park Travellers Site Improvement Scheme to be included in the funded Capital Programme for 2006/2007.

Officer responsible for effecting the decision:

Corporate Director (Community Services).

Reason for making the decision: Page 162 CABINET 10TH OCTOBER 2006

The decision fulfils the requirements of the management agreement with the County Council. The bid for grant assistance was made on behalf of the County Council to help ensure that the standards of facilities on the Mellishaw Park Travellers Site are improved to meet the expectations of today’s residents. If the work is not undertaken the residents on the site would have to continue to live with standards of facilities that are not acceptable.

The implementation of further improvements to the facilities on the site are important to residents on the site and to the Site’s future sustainability.

The meeting adjourned at 12.34pm and reconvened at 12.52pm.

At this point Councillor Gina Dowding left the meeting.

58 CHILDREN'S CENTRE, OPTION APPRAISAL (MORECAMBE'S WEST END)

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Janice Hanson)

In accordance with Cabinet Procedure Rule 2.6 Councillor Peter Robinson, in his capacity as a Ward Councillor, addressed Cabinet on this item.

Cabinet considered the concerns of Councillor Robinson and a report that outlined the current position in relation to possible establishment of a Children’s Centre in the West End of Morecambe. It sought approval in principle from members of Cabinet to allow Lancashire County Council to consider part of Regent’s Park as one of the options under consideration.

The options and options analysis, including risk assessment and the Officer preferred option, were set out in the report as follows:

a) To include the Regent Park option in the Options Appraisal exercise.

b) To exclude the Regent Park option from the Options Appraisal exercise

The Officer preferred option was option A.

It was moved by Councillor Janice Hanson and seconded by Councillor Ron Sands: -

“That the recommendations, as set out in the report, be approved. “

By way of an amendment it was proposed by Councillor Ian Barker and seconded by Councillor Pat Quinton:-

“That the text of the above proposal be deleted and be replaced by:

1. Cabinet recognises the importance of Children’s Centres in improving the life chances of young people in deprived areas. It therefore believes that there is an urgent need to secure a site for a Children’s Centre in the West End.

2. Cabinet also recognises the need to provide better quality open space as part of the regeneration of the West End and notes that Regent Park is key to this. Page 163 CABINET 10TH OCTOBER 2006

3. Cabinet notes that the County Council Cabinet Member with responsibility for Children and Young People decided on 20th June 2006 to provide a Children’s Centre at West End Primary School and that the relevant report noted that the child care element would have to be provided off site.

4. Cabinet regrets that County Council did not secure a suitable site in Phase 1 and appears to wish to vary the decision already reached about a site in Phase 2. No clear or consistent reason has been provided for this change of direction.

5. Cabinet therefore seeks an urgent meeting with the County Council Cabinet member for Children and Young People to clarify the County Council’s position before reaching a decision.”

Members then voted upon the substantive notion as follows:

(6 Members voted in favour of the amendment, 1 Member voted against the amendment (Councillor Sands) and 1 Member abstained (Councillor Hanson).

Resolved:

1. That Cabinet recognises the importance of Children’s Centres in improving the life chances of young people in deprived areas. It therefore believes that there is an urgent need to secure a site for a Children’s Centre in the West End.

2. Cabinet also recognises the need to provide better quality open space as part of the regeneration of the West End and notes that Regent Park is key to this.

5. Cabinet therefore seeks an urgent meeting with the County Council Cabinet member for Children and Young People to clarify the County Council’s position before reaching a decision.”

Officer responsible for effecting the decision:

Corporate Director, (Regeneration).

Reason for making the decision:

The decision has been made to allow full consideration of all options currently available without committing the Council to any course of action at this stage. Should the Regent Park option be approved and be the preferred option of the County Council, there would need to be a further Cabinet report considering all the implications.

59 REFERRAL FROM OVERVIEW & SCRUTINY COMMITTEE - PLAYGROUND Page 164 CABINET 10TH OCTOBER 2006

PROVISION

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Jon Barry)

Cabinet considered a report that advised Cabinet of the outcome of the Call-in of the Cabinet Decision with regard to Playground Provision (Cabinet Minute 45) and to request Cabinet to consider and adopt the recommendations of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee in relation to this matter. . Members were asked to consider whether to insert ‘Parish Councils’ into Part 4 of its resolution on Playground provision i.e. on the same basis as Community Groups.

Members discussed the idea of adding ‘Parish Councils’ into the proposal.

It was moved by Councillor Eileen Blamire and seconded by Councillor Janice Hanson: -

“That the proposal is not changed to include ‘Parish Councils’. “

Resolved:

(5 Members voted for the motion (Councillors Barry, Blamire, Bryning, Hanson and Sands,) 2 Members voted against the motion (Councillors Quinton and Stone) and 1 Member abstained (Councillor Barker).

That Cabinet reaffirms it’s previous position and the proposal is not changed to include ‘Parish Councils’.

Officers responsible for effecting the decision:

This was a call in of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

Reason for making the decision:

The decision was made because Cabinet did not agree with the view that through adopting the amendment to the wording of the resolution on this issue as set out above, the decision on playgrounds is fairer for the whole of the district including parished areas.

60 AUCTION MART CAR PARK LANCASTER

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Alex Stone)

Cabinet considered a report that advised of a potential development opportunity that would provide improvements to the Auction Mart car park in Lancaster.

Members discussed the issues involved in the proposal and the benefits it may bring to the City.

The options and options analysis, including risk assessment and the Officer preferred option, were set out in the report as follows:

a) To market the Auction Mart car park as a development opportunity for a new car Page 165 CABINET 10TH OCTOBER 2006

park (and associated development). This would provide the Council with the opportunity to have a new car park that meets the needs of its customers whilst providing an opportunity for a separate development on part of the site. The new car park could also be of a size that would cater for the long stay spaces being lost as part of the Canal Corridor (North) scheme. Should the marketing fail to produce a suitable scheme for the Council, the Council would retain its existing facility and further consideration of how to improve the car park could be made at that time. It should be emphasised that the timescales involved in this proposal are very tight and extensive consultations may result in the timescales for undertaking a scheme being reduced and therefore the scheme could not proceed.

b) Not to market the car park. This would leave the car park in a very poor condition with continuing customer complaints. In addition, the issue of a potentially reduced number of long stay spaces would remain. An opportunity to use external funds to provide an improved car park facility would be lost.

The Officer preferred option was option A.

It was moved by Councillor Alex Stone and seconded by Councillor Ian Barker: -

“That the recommendations, as set out in the report, be approved.“

Resolved:

(7 Members voted for the motion (Councillors Barker, Blamire, Bryning, Hanson, Quinton, Sands and Stone) and 1 Member abstained (Councillor Barry)).

(1) That approval be given to the marketing of the Auction Mart Car Park as a car park development opportunity (and associated development) on the basis that Council would enter into a development agreement should a suitable proposal be submitted that provides the Council with a new car park.

(2) That in determining the capacity of the new facility, the needs of any alternative development arising from the site is taken into account whilst reflecting the overall requirements for long stay parking across the City.

(3) That should the proposals be approved, public consultation be undertaken as part of the process of determining the schemes submitted.

Officer responsible for effecting the decision:

Report of Corporate Director (Regeneration).

Reason for making the decision:

The decision was made, as this would enable the Council to have an opportunity to provide a much improved car park facility using external funds from the sale of the site.

61 CUSTOMER SERVICE CENTRES

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Alex Stone) Page 166 CABINET 10TH OCTOBER 2006

Cabinet considered a report that advised Members of the current position with regards to the provision of Customer Service Centres and sought approval to proceed with appropriate works to create the Centres in both Town Halls. The report also provided an update on the linked Access to Services issues.

The options and options analysis, including risk assessment and the Officer preferred option, were set out in the report as follows:

Customer Service Centres

(a) That the current designs be used on a basis for further works to take them to the tender stage and that a final decision on acceptance of tender prices is subject to the review of the capital programme in December and the appropriate level of finance being made available.

(b) That 20:20 Liverpool be asked to produce a scaled down scheme as an option for just one Customer Service Centre that can be accommodated within the existing budget.

Project Management

(a) That provision is made for the necessary project management resources to be financed by recharge to capital schemes with the option of charging the costs to the Access to Services revenue reserve should there be any delay in appropriate capital schemes being included in the capital programme.

(b) Wait to make any project management provision until the outcome of the capital programme is determined by the budget process.

Feasibility Costs

(a) Ring-fence the income from Lancashire County Council's continued occupation of Morecambe Town Hall to fund feasibility costs associated with the long-term accommodation options determined by Council.

(b) To make no provision for feasibility studies until the budget process is determined for 2007/08.

The Officer preferred options were:

Customer Service Centre

The preferred option was Option A as this would allow progress to be made on the optimum designs for both Morecambe and Lancaster while final budgetary decisions are made regarding the capital programme in December.

Project Management

The preferred option is Option A as this will allow progress to be made on both developing the Customer Service Centres but also, in the longer term, accommodation options which Council has commissioned. If progress is delayed until the outcome of the capital programme from 2007/08 onwards is determined, it is likely that the timescale for reporting back to Council on accommodation options around the two Town Halls will Page 167 CABINET 10TH OCTOBER 2006

not be met.

Feasibility Work

The preferred option was Option A as this would allow timely progress in meeting Council requirements to report back on the options for long term accommodation requirements. Any delay in commissioning feasibility work will mean that original target date for reporting back to Council will not be met.

It was moved by Councillor Alex Stone and seconded by Councillor Ian Barker: -

“That the recommendations, as set out in the report, be approved. “

Resolved unanimously:

(1) That the position with regard to the Phase 1 integration of services into the Customer Service Centre is noted and the recommended changes in timetabling agreed.

(2) That approval was given to the appointment of 20:20 Liverpool as the architects to prepare the schemes for the Customer Service Centres.

(3) That the outline proposals for Customer Service Centres in both Lancaster and Morecambe Town Halls be approved as the basis for detailed drawings and tenders to be prepared and signed prior to 31st March 2007, subject to the final costs being accommodated in the capital programme as part of the budget process.

(4) That the feasibility work in relation to long-term accommodation options be funded from the Access to Services reserve and that the income gained from the County Council's use of Morecambe Town Hall be added to this reserve.

Officer responsible for effecting the decision:

Corporate Director (Regeneration).

Reason for making the decision:

The decision for customer service centre was made to allow progress to be made on the optimum designs for both Morecambe and Lancaster while final budgetary decisions are made regarding the capital programme in December.

The decision for project management was made to allow progress to be made on both developing the Customer Service Centres but, in the longer term, accommodation options which Council has commissioned. If progress is delayed until the outcome of the capital programme from 2007/08 onwards is determined, it is likely that the timescale for reporting back to Council on accommodation options around the two Town Halls will not be met.

The preferred for feasibility work would allow timely progress in meeting Council requirements to report back on the options for long term accommodation requirements. Any delay in commissioning feasibility work will mean that original target date for reporting back to Council will not be met. Page 168 CABINET 10TH OCTOBER 2006

62 STAR CHAMBER

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Ian Barker)

Cabinet considered a report that updated on the Star Chamber meeting held since the last report to Cabinet of 25 July 2006.

Resolved unanimously:

That the report be noted.

Officer responsible for effecting the decision:

Report of Corporate Director (Finance and Performance)

63 MEDIUM TERM FINANCIAL STRATEGY REVIEW

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Ian Barker)

Cabinet considered a report that provided updated financial projections for future years based on information currently available, in order that Cabinet can review the appropriateness of existing targets for Council Tax increases and make recommendations on to Council as appropriate.

The options and options analysis, including risk assessment and the Officer preferred option, were set out in the report as follows:

There is no specific officer preferred option with regard to Council Tax levels.

It was moved by Councillor Ian Barker and seconded by Councillor Alex Stone: -

“That the recommendations, as set out in the report, be approved. “

Resolved unanimously:

(1) That Cabinet approves the revised financial projections and the assumptions underpinning them, and that they be referred on to Council for information.

(2) That Council be recommended in principle to retain the existing Council Tax target increase of no more than 4.9% for future years but that this be reviewed during the budget process, alongside the use of surplus balances, to ensure that these principles continue to support sustainable and prudent financial planning as well as sustainable service delivery.

Officers responsible for effecting the decision:

Corporate Director (Finance & Performance). Head of Financial Services.

Reason for making the decision:

The decision has been made because a number of changes have been made to (or Page 169 CABINET 10TH OCTOBER 2006

need to be reflected in) the Council’s spending plans and, overall, is based on information currently available. Given the changes, it would be appropriate to review the use of surplus balances during the forthcoming budget round.

64 EXCLUSION OF THE PRESS AND PUBLIC

The Chairman asked for any further declarations of interest from Cabinet Members regarding the exempt reports.

It was moved by Councillor Pat Quinton and seconded by Councillor Janice Hanson:-

“That the following items (Minute Nos. 65 and 66 refers) be considered in the exempt part of the meeting and that, in accordance with Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act, 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting for those items of business on the grounds that they could involve the possible disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraphs 2 and 3 of Schedule 12A of that Act.”

Members then voted as follows.

Resolved unanimously:

(1) That the following items (Minute Nos. 63 and 64 refers) be considered in the exempt part of the meeting and that, in accordance with Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act, 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting for those items of business on the grounds that they could involve the possible disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraphs 2 and 3 of Schedule 12A of that Act.

65 APOLLO CINEMA, MARINE ROAD CENTRAL, MORECAMBE

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Alex Stone)

Cabinet considered a report that informed Cabinet of a proposal submitted by Apollo Cinemas as outlined in the report.

Members discussed the options as set out in the report.

The options and options analysis, including risk assessment and the Officer preferred option, were set out in the report for Members consideration.

The Officer preferred option was option A.

It was moved by Councillor Alex Stone and seconded by Councillor Jon Barry:-

“That Cabinet approve option C as set out in the report”.

Upon being put to the vote two Members voted in favour of the motion (Councillors Barry and Stone) and six Members voted against the motion (Councillors Barker, Blamire, Bryning, Hanson, Quinton, and Sands) and the motion was declared lost.

It was then moved by Councillor Janice Hanson and seconded by Councillor Eileen Page 170 CABINET 10TH OCTOBER 2006

Blamire:-

“That option A, as set out in the report, be approved. “

Resolved:

(6 Members voted in favour (Councillors Barker, Blamire, Hanson, Bryning, Quinton and Sands), and 2 Members against (Councillors Barry and Stone.))

That Cabinet agree to the removal of the claw back clause from the lease and receive the amount, set out in the report, from Apollo Cinemas to cover any potential loss in rental income the City Council may have received should the cinema use be changed.

Officer responsible for effecting the decision:

Report of Corporate Director (Regeneration).

Reason for making the decision:

The decision was made as the Council would receive the amount, set out in the report, from Apollo Cinemas to cover any potential loss in rental income the City Council may have received should the cinema use be changed.

66 CYCLING DEMONSTRATION TOWN

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Alex Stone)

Cabinet considered a report to report and obtain approval for the acquisition of land for a cycling link and for subsequent acquisitions to be delegated to the Corporate Director (Community Services).

The Officer preferred options are Options (a)(i) & (a)(ii) as set out in the report.

It was moved by Councillor Alex Stone and seconded by Councillor Jon Barry : -

“That the recommendations, as set out in the report, be approved. “

Resolved unanimously:

(1) That the acquisition of land at Lansil Industrial Estate be approved on the terms set out in the report.

(2) That Cabinet delegate all acquisitions up to a limit of £50,000 to the Corporate Director (Community Services), subject to necessary funding being available.

Officers responsible for effecting the decision:

Corporate Director (Community Services). Corporate Director (Regeneration).

Reason for making the decision: Page 171 CABINET 10TH OCTOBER 2006

The decision was made because negotiations have been concluded with PGD and a purchase price mutually agreed. There are many more similar negotiations taking place throughout the District to enhance the cycling network and meet the objectives of the Cycling Demonstration Town scheme.

Chairman

(The meeting ended at 2.25 p.m.)

Any queries regarding these Minutes, please contact James Doble, Democratic Services, telephone 01524 582057 or email [email protected]

MINUTES PUBLISHED ON: THURSDAY 12TH OCTOBER, 2006

EFFECTIVE DATE FOR IMPLEMENTING THE DECISIONS CONTAINED IN THESE MINUTES: FRIDAY, 20TH OCTOBER, 2006. Page 172

This page is intentionally left blank Public DocumentPage 173 Pack

CABINET 2.00 P.M. 24TH OCTOBER 2006

PRESENT:- Councillors Ian Barker (Chairman), Jon Barry, Eileen Blamire, Gina Dowding, John Gilbert, Janice Hanson, Pat Quinton, Ron Sands and Alex Stone

Also Present

Councillor Stuart Langhorn

Apologies for Absence

Councillor Abbott Bryning

Officers in attendance:-

Mark Cullinan Chief Executive Roger Muckle Corporate Director (Finance and Performance) John Donnellon Corporate Director (Regeneration) Nadine Muschamp Head of Financial Services Graham Cox Head of Property Services James Doble Principal Democratic Support Officer

67 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

No declarations were made at this point.

68 CALL-IN OF DECISION - STOREY INSTITUTE

(Cabinet Members with Special Responsibility Councillors Ian Barker, Abbott Bryning and Alex Stone.)

Councillor Langhorn was in attendance at the meeting in his capacity as representative of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee and presented the Committee’s report in accordance with Cabinet Procedure Rule 2.6.

Cabinet considered a report that advised of the recommendations of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, at it’s meeting on 18th October 2006, in respect of its Call-in of the Decision made by Cabinet in respect of the Storey Institute.

The Overview and Scrutiny Committee held a lengthy debate on the issue and the following resolution was carried: -

“(1) That Cabinet agrees to pursue option 1 as set out in the report.

(2) That Cabinet allocates leeway funding of £0.5 million to the SCIC, which could be reduced if other funding becomes available.

(3) That Officers take the necessary financial and procedural steps to amend the capital programme and secure the necessary external grant funding for the SCIC. Page 174 CABINET 24TH OCTOBER 2006

(4) That the Chief Executive considers what lessons can be learnt in terms of: • Project management and project champions • Conflicts of interest of Cabinet Members • Involving people with relevant expertise throughout project planning and delivery.”

Cabinet was, therefore, asked to reconsider their original decision in light of recommendations 1 and 2 from the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

It was moved by Councillor Barker and seconded by Councillor Eileen Blamire that: -

Cabinet recognises the sentiments of Overview and Scrutiny in wanting to see the Storey project developed and keep significant external funding investment in the district. Cabinet also recognises the significant risks in a scaled down project and in pursuing the following resolution wishes to protect the interests of all Council tax payers while achieving the benefits of the Storey Project.

Cabinet resolves that :

(1) That funding drawn from the Industrial aid provision (£100k), SRB under spend (£150K), and estimated revenue savings arising from concessionary travel (£150K) and treasury management (£100K) are allocated to the Storey project to make up the current £500,000 shortfall in funding.

(2) That the Head of Financial Services be authorised to update the Revenue Budget and Capital Programme accordingly.

(3) That the above funding arrangements be reviewed as part of the 2007/08 budget process, in light of the updated revenue and capital position, and in recognition of the funding risks attached.

(4) That the terms of the lease are such that surpluses achieved in the running of the Storey project be used to provide for a development fund that could be used to complete elements of the project omitted from the current scheme and repay the Council ' s contribution to the project.

(5) That the terms of the lease allow for the Council to step in in the event of the business plan failing to achieve its financial and European funding targets, or in the event of additional capital costs being incurred over and above the £3.1m estimated to complete the contingency plan, to ensure any risk to the Council can be mitigated.

(6) That the terms of the lease be agreed between the board and officers before being brought back to cabinet for consideration.”

Members then voted as follows.

Resolved Unanimously: -

(1) That funding drawn from the Industrial aid provision (£100k), SRB under Page 175 CABINET 24TH OCTOBER 2006

spend (£150K), and estimated revenue savings arising from concessionary travel (£150K) and treasury management (£100K) are allocated to the Storey project to make up the current £500,000 shortfall in funding.

(2) That the Head of Financial Services be authorised to update the Revenue Budget and Capital Programme accordingly.

(3) That the above funding arrangements be reviewed as part of the 2007/08 budget process, in light of the updated revenue and capital position, and in recognition of the funding risks attached.

(6) That the terms of the lease be agreed between the board and officers before being brought back to cabinet for consideration.”

Officer responsible for effecting the decision:

Corporate Director (Regeneration)

Reason for making the decision:

The decision was made because Cabinet recognises the sentiments of Overview and Scrutiny in wanting to see the Storey project developed and keep significant external funding investment in the district. Recently identified financial resources that weren’t previously available allowed Cabinet the option to use these to finance the contingency plan without implications for the Council’s existing spending plans. Cabinet also recognises the significant risks in a scaled down project and in pursuing the following resolution wishes to protect the interests of all Council taxpayers while achieving the benefits of the Storey Project.

Chairman

(The meeting ended at 3.15pm)

Any queries regarding these Minutes, please contact James Doble, Democratic Services, telephone 01524 582057 or email [email protected] Page 176 CABINET 24TH OCTOBER 2006 Page 177

CABINET 10.00 A.M. 14TH NOVEMBER 2006

PRESENT:- Councillors Ian Barker (Chairman), Jon Barry, Eileen Blamire, Abbott Bryning, Gina Dowding, John Gilbert, Janice Hanson, Pat Quinton, Ron Sands and Alex Stone.

Officers in attendance:-

Mark Cullinan Chief Executive John Donnellon Corporate Director (Regeneration) Roger Muckle Corporate Director (Finance and Performance) Nadine Muschamp Head of Financial Services David Owen Head of Cultural Services (part) Gillian Noall Head of Democratic Services (part) Nick Howard Team Leader/Sneior Environmental Health Officer (part) Stephen Metcalfe Principal Democratic Support Officer

69 CHAIRMAN'S REMARKS

The Chairman, at the commencement of the meeting, welcomed the School Council of St. Bernadette’s Roman Catholic Primary School who were observing the meeting from the public gallery.

70 MINUTES

The Minutes of the meeting held on 10th October 2006 and the Special Cabinet held on 24th October 2006 were signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

71 ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS AUTHORISED BY THE LEADER

The Chairman advised that there were no items of urgent business. Members were, however, advised of supplementary documentation regarding the Budget and Policy Framework, letters received regarding the Review of Special Expenses and a larger print version of the Community Safety Partnership Funding spreadsheet, which had been electronically circulated in advance of the meeting and were tabled at the meeting.

72 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

No declarations were made at this point.

73 BUDGET AND POLICY FRAMEWORK - CABINET PRIORITIES - CONSULTATION

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Ian Barker)

Cabinet considered a report that presented, for Cabinet’s consideration, the results from the public consultation on the 2007/08 Cabinet Priorities. A supplementary report was circulated, at the meeting, for Members’ consideration.

It was moved by Councillor Ian Barker and seconded by Councillor Janice Hanson: - Page 178 CABINET 14TH NOVEMBER 2006

“That the recommendations, as set out in the supplementary report, be approved, subject to the following additions: -

• That, in considering these priorities, the Informal Group also considers the White paper outcomes, Neighbourhood Management issues, and Local Government re-organisation in coming to its decisions.”

Members then voted as follows:

Resolved unanimously:

(1) That Cabinet note the responses received to date in respect of the 2007/08 Cabinet Priorities consultation.

(2) That Cabinet refers the detailed consideration of the responses to an informal group of Cabinet consisting of the Chairman and three other Cabinet Members and that delegated power is given to the Chairman to finalise the amended list of priorities.

(3) That subject to (2) above, the approved list of draft priorities be used as the basis to prepare the draft 2007/08 Corporate Plan and for developing the three year revenue budget for the period 2007/10 and the 2007/12 five year capital programme.

(4) That a first draft of the 2007/08 Corporate Plan be referred to the December 2006 Council meeting for their consideration.

(5) That, in considering these priorities, the Informal Group also considers the White paper outcomes, Neighbourhood Management issues, and Local Government re-organisation in coming to its decisions.

Officer responsible for effecting the decision:

Corporate Director (Finance and Performance).

Reason for making the decision:

The decision was made, as Cabinet is required to prepare each year, its Budget and Policy Framework proposals for consideration by Council as a basis for preparing the annual Corporate Plan. This process is the first stage in preparing these proposals.

74 TREASURY MANAGEMENT PROGRESS REPORT

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Ian Barker)

Cabinet considered a report that set out the performance of the Council to 30th September 2006 in respect of treasury management activities.

The options and options analysis, including risk assessment and the Officer preferred option, were set out in the report as follows: Page 179 CABINET 14TH NOVEMBER 2006

There were no options available to Members as such; reporting of activities to both Cabinet and Council was required under the Treasury Management Code of Practice and reflected in the City Council’s Strategy.

The Officer preferred option was that the position regarding treasury management activities to 30th September 2006 be noted.

It was moved by Councillor Ian Barker and seconded by Councillor Pat Quinton: -

“That the recommendations, as set out in the report, be approved.“

Members then voted as follows:

Resolved unanimously:

(1) That the position regarding treasury management activities to 30th September 2006 be noted.

Officer responsible for effecting the decision:

Head of Financial Services.

Reason for making the decision:

The decision was made to note that, so far this year, the City Council is progressing well in its investing activities and has achieved significant savings against the profiled net budget. Work is underway during the estimate process to establish where improvements can be made in cash flow forecasting; these would help strengthen the budget setting process.

75 REVIEW OF SPECIAL EXPENSES

(Cabinet Members with Special Responsibility Councillors Ian Barker and Pat Quinton)

Cabinet considered a report that updated Members on the outcome of the review of the current operation of Special Expenses within the district and to make recommendations to Council on the way forward, in context of the recent White Paper and the proposed rural Neighbourhood Management pilot project. Reponses received from Carnforth Town Council and Halton with Aughton Parish Council were circulated at meeting for Members’ consideration.

The options and options analysis, including risk assessment and the Officer preferred option, were set out in the report as follows:

Option 1 - Retain current special expenses arrangements

This option was considered viable only until any major changes in the parish make-up occur, such as the formation of a Morecambe Town Council. Whilst the current arrangements clearly do not meet in full their original objective, they have been broadly accepted over the years and there are no other perceived risks in them being retained for an interim period. Page 180 CABINET 14TH NOVEMBER 2006

Option 2 - Remove current special expenses arrangement, with no alternative introduced

Effectively this would mean that taxpayers in the parished areas would pay more tax than in the non-parished areas, because of the precepts for services provided by parishes. Based on 2006/07 rates, non-parished taxpayers would pay £5.16 less at current Band D tax, and parished taxpayers would pay £10.20 more than they do now. Whilst being simple, this option would do nothing to address the principles of fairness and finance following function; in fact in all likelihood it would have (or be perceived to have) an adverse effect. Furthermore, the option would not cater for any financial issues arising from the neighbourhood management agenda or from the establishment of other area forums.

Option 3 - Remove current arrangements, and introduce either an improved special expenses scheme, and/or other supporting funding arrangements for Parish Councils.

This could follow the five good practice principles and could take account of the proposed rural Neighbourhood Management project and the White Paper. At present though, there is insufficient knowledge and information about the responsibilities and spending plans of existing parishes and this information, together with the outcome of the neighbourhood management project, would be crucial to identify and address the following issues:

- Anomalies in parish / district activities and responsibilities and importantly, how they came about (i.e. by choice or otherwise) - Whether any specific responsibilities should transfer to or from certain parishes, with corresponding transfers of funding - How to keep the financial arrangements as clear and simple as possible, whilst still being fit for purpose (given that the Finance system is complex enough already) - How best to ensure that future decisions regarding service provision are paid for by the appropriate group of taxpayers - Whether any other aspects of neighbourhood management or other forums should be covered through the arrangements - Whether the City Council would wish to manage the financial arrangements solely through special expenses arrangements, or whether it would wish to consider (and very importantly, whether it could afford) any other funding arrangements.

Therefore, it would be necessary over the coming year or so to work with parishes to pull together such information and formulate detailed arrangements for future years.

The timing of the outcome of this would also be dependent on the completion of the neighbourhood management project (assuming it goes ahead), the future of any Morecambe Town Council and timing for its set up and it may also be influenced by the outcome of the City Council’s bid for unitary status. It would also be dependent upon the parishes participating in a fact finding exercise regarding spending on functions and responsibilities, a suggested initial questionnaire was attached at Appendix B to the report.

The main risks attached to the above were linked to having clear way forward for neighbourhood management and the role of parishes, and how this might link to outcome of the City Council’s unitary submission. If the rural neighbourhood Page 181 CABINET 14TH NOVEMBER 2006

management project proves abortive or unsuccessful though, parish councils would continue to exist and, therefore, options for future arrangements would still need to be determined (and could still be). In addition, parishes would need to cooperate in terms of sharing information and it was hoped that the consultation being undertaken with parishes would help in this regard.

Finally, other key risks relate to the simplicity, understanding and affordability of any new funding arrangements and managing people’s expectations. Again, the consultation exercise could assist with this and it is important to stress that this option would be more concerned with the issue of who pays for existing levels of service provision; it would not be about generating extra funds to increase those levels of service.

The Officer preferred options were to:

- Retain the existing arrangements (option 1) on an interim basis only; - Use the next year or so to pull together information to develop improved special expenses arrangement, which may or may not involve other changes to funding arrangements (option3). This would be on the basis though that no significant funding burden should fall on the City Council.

It was moved by Councillor Ian Barker and seconded by Councillor Pat Quinton: -

“That the recommendations, as set out in the report, be approved.“

Members then voted as follows:

Resolved unanimously:

(1) That for the short term, Council be recommended to retain the current arrangements for special expenses as an interim measure.

(2) That for future years, revised financial arrangements between the City Council and Parish Councils be developed in line with the good practice principles outlined in the report, taking into account the outcome of the proposed rural neighbourhood management project and the White Paper.

(3) That in order to support (2) above, the City Council seeks further information from parishes on their detailed spending plans for 2007/08 (and their outturn for 2006/07) in order that the issue of double taxation can be adequately addressed.

(4) That the outcome of the current consultation with Parish Councils be fed into the next Council meeting to inform the decision-making process.

Officer responsible for effecting the decision:

Head of Financial Services.

Reason for making the decision:

The decision notes that whilst the current arrangements clearly do not meet in full their original objective, they have been broadly accepted over the years and there are no other perceived risks in them being retained for an interim period. Page 182 CABINET 14TH NOVEMBER 2006

76 PARISH COUNCIL ELECTIONS

(Cabinet Members with Special Responsibility Councillors Alex Stone and Pat Quinton)

Cabinet considered a report upon the cost of organising Parish Council elections and whether individual Parishes should be charged for the service.

The options and options analysis, including risk assessment and the Officer preferred option, were set out in the report as follows:

Option 1 – to make no change to the current arrangement with the City Council bearing the full cost of all Parish Council elections.

Option 2 – to charge all Parish Councils the full cost of all Parish Council elections and by-elections, including a proportion of permanent staff costs.

Option 3 – to charge all Parish Councils the marginal costs incurred by the City Council over and above the cost of the City Council elections, including the full cost of any by- elections.

Option 4 – to charge all Parish Councils the marginal costs incurred by the City Council over and above the cost of the City Council elections, but to make no charge for any by- elections.

Option 5 – to make a charge to all Parish Councils based on a percentage of the actual cost of the Parish Council election.

Option 6 – to make a standard charge (based on electorate) to all Parish Councils for any elections – an initial charge for an uncontested election with a further charge if contested.

There was no officer preferred option in terms of operational ease, however Option 3, to charge all Parish Councils the marginal costs incurred by the City Council over and above the cost of the City Council elections, including the full cost of any by-elections would ensure that the true cost of Parish Councils to the electorate they serve is properly reflected.

It was moved by Councillor Pat Quinton seconded by Councillor John Gilbert: -

“That this matter be deferred and looked at as part of the Review of Expenses.“

Members then voted as follows:

Resolved:

(8 Members voted in favour and 2 Members (Councillors Ian Barker and Jon Barry) abstained from voting)

(1) That this matter be deferred and looked at as part of the Review of Expenses. Page 183 CABINET 14TH NOVEMBER 2006

Officers responsible for effecting the decision:

Chief Executive. Head of Democratic Services. Head of Financial Services.

Reason for making the decision:

The decision will enable Members to consider this matter further with issues relating to the Special Expenses (Minute 75 refers).

77 DEVELOPMENT OF TWINNING ARRANGEMENTS

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Alex Stone)

(Councillor Eileen Blamire declared a personal interest in this item with regard to that part of the debate that referred to St. Martin’s College in her capacity as a Member of the Governing Body).

Cabinet considered a report upon the future development of twinning arrangements in particular requests for the City of Lancaster to formally twin with a city in China.

The options and options analysis, including risk assessment and the Officer preferred option, were set out in the report as follows:

Option 1 – that the Council extend its current twinning arrangement and take the necessary steps to pursue a further twinning agreement with one of the two cities in China who have approached Lancaster.

Option 2 - that the Council extend its current twinning arrangement and take the necessary steps to pursue a further twinning agreement with a city elsewhere in the world.

Option 3 – that the Council confirm its commitment to its existing twin towns and community links in Europe, retaining the present level of involvement and budget allocation, but that no further twinning arrangements be considered for the present time, at least for the life of the current Medium Term Financial Strategy (to 2010/11).

Option 4 – that the Council cease to pursue any further activity with its twinning partners.

Option 5 – that the Council investigate involvement in the development of closer ties with a Chinese city or region in conjunction with the Universities.

The officer preferred option was to take forward Options 3 and 5.

It was moved by Councillor Jon Barry and seconded by Councillor Alex Stone: -

“(1) That the Council confirm its commitment to its existing twin towns and community links in Europe, retaining the present level of involvement and budget allocation, but that no further twinning arrangements be considered for the present time, at least for the life of the current Medium Term Financial Strategy (to 2010/11). Page 184 CABINET 14TH NOVEMBER 2006

(2) That the Council investigate involvement in the development of closer ties with a Chinese city or region in conjunction with the Universities.“

By way of amendment, which was accepted as a friendly amendment by the mover and seconder of the original proposition, it was moved by Councillor Ian Barker: -

• “That Cabinet is minded to recommended in principle that it will, at some point, consider twinning with a developing democratic country.”

Members then voted as follows:

Resolved unanimously:

(1) That the Council confirms its commitment to its existing twin towns and community links in Europe, retaining the present level of involvement and budget allocation, but that no further twinning arrangements be considered for the present time, at least for the life of the current Medium Term Financial Strategy (to 2010/11).

(2) That the Council investigate involvement in the development of closer ties with a Chinese city or region in conjunction with the Universities.

(3) That Cabinet is minded to recommended in principle that it will, at some point, consider twinning with a developing democratic country.

Officers responsible for effecting the decision:

Chief Executive. Head of Democratic Services.

Reason for making the decision:

The decision notes that the City Council already has five active twinning agreements and aside from annual participation in the Youth Games is unable to give regular commitment to maintaining the links with these towns and cities, some of which have been in place for decades. Any growth in twinning activity can only be pursued with additional funding and to develop new links will require substantial investment and the inclusion of this area of work as a City Council priority. In view of the comments received from St. Martin’s College and Lancaster University, closer ties with a city or region in China will be considered where recruitment to the universities is already taking place, or is planned for the future. This would stop short of a formal twinning arrangement but would look at how the City Council could be involved in links already being forged by the universities.

78 URGENT BUSINESS REPORT

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Ian Barker)

Cabinet considered a report that advised Members of action taken by the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Leader and relevant Cabinet Members.

It was moved by Councillor Ian Barker and seconded by Councillor Pat Quinton: - Page 185 CABINET 14TH NOVEMBER 2006

“That the recommendations, as set out in the report, be approved.“

Members then voted as follows:

Resolved unanimously:

That the actions taken by the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Leader, the relevant Cabinet Member and the Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee in accordance with the Scheme of Delegation, in relation to the following matters, be noted:

(1) Lease of accommodation within Morecambe Town Hall to Lancashire County Council.

(2) Disposal of Land at Port of Heysham Industrial Park – Site 4.

(3) Carnforth Council Offices, 46-48 Market Street.

Officer responsible for effecting the decision:

Chief Executive.

Reason for making the decision:

The decision fulfils the requirements of the City Council’s Constitution in advising Cabinet of urgent decisions taken by the Chief Executive in accordance with the City Council’s Scheme of Delegation.

79 COMMUNITY SAFETY PARTNERSHIP FUNDING

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Eileen Blamire).

Cabinet considered a report that informed Members of funding made available to the Lancaster District Community Safety Partnership and also to update the City Council’s budgets accordingly.

The options and options analysis, including risk assessment and the Officer preferred option, were set out in the report as follows:

That Members agree, or do not agree, to the City Council continuing to disseminate SSCF grant funding for 2006/07 and to update the Council’s budgets accordingly.

The officer preferred option was that Members approve the City Council continuing to disseminate SSFC grant funding and agree to update the General Fund Revenue and Capital budgets. This will enable the district to benefit from the funding allocated.

It was moved by Councillor Eileen Blamire and seconded by Councillor Janice Hanson: -

“That the recommendations, as set out in the report, be approved, subject to the addition of a reporting mechanism being identified to enable Members to be aware of the deployment of PCSOs.“ Page 186 CABINET 14TH NOVEMBER 2006

Members then voted as follows.

Resolved unanimously:

(1) That Members agree to the City Council disseminating SSCF funding for the Community Safety Partnership as shown on the Spending Plan and endorse the attached Spending Plan (Appendix 1 to the report) for 2006-07, as agreed within the Community Safety Partnership.

(2) That Members agree to update the General Fund Revenue Budget and Capital Programme to reflect this year’s expenditure and financing, as set out in the report, subject to there being a nil impact on the City Council’s resources.

(3) That a reporting mechanism be identified to enable Members to be aware of the deployment of PCSOs.

Officers responsible for effecting the decision:

Chief Executive. Head of Corporate Strategy.

Reason for making the decision:

The decision was made to enable the Partnership and the district to benefit from funding to assist in meeting the aims of the Community Safety Strategy.

80 REVIEW OF CULTURAL SERVICES

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Ron Sands).

Cabinet considered a report that presented the preferred option for a Cultural Services organisational structure and options for meeting the savings targets set in the budget.

The options and options analysis, including risk assessment and the Officer preferred option, were set out in the report as follows:

(1) Agreeing the organisational structure as proposed subject to the detail being agreed by Personnel Committee in December 2006.

(2) Amending the scope of the Service to a degree that would result in a greater level of budget savings.

(3) To take the savings identified as efficiency savings, and still require the restructure to be reduced in order to meet the original approved budget.

The officer preferred option was Option 1 with the target saving being met from the identified budgets and the detail of individual posts being subject to consideration by Personnel Committee in December 2006 following the formal period of staff consultation.

It was moved by Councillor Ron Sands and seconded by Councillor Pat Quinton: -

“That the recommendations, as set out in the report, be approved.“ Page 187 CABINET 14TH NOVEMBER 2006

Members then voted as follows.

Resolved Unanimously:

(1) That the organisational structure of Cultural Services, as outlined in the preferred option, be approved.

(2) That the Children and Young Peoples Section, currently within Cultural Services, transfers to Corporate Strategy.

(3) That a further detailed report be submitted to the Personnel Committee on 21st December 2006 to approve the detailed operational structure for Cultural Services.

(4) That the Head of Financial Services be instructed to update the General Fund Revenue budget to reflect the organisational structure and proposed savings, subject to Personnel Committee approval of the detailed operational structure.

Officers responsible for effecting the decision:

Chief Executive. Corporate Director (Regeneration). Head of Corporate Strategy. Head of Cultural Services. Head of Financial Services. Head of Legal and Human Resources.

Reason for making the decision:

The decision notes that the merger of the former Leisure and Arts and Events Services has provided the opportunity for staff to reconsider the methodology adopted when booking acts/artists for both the Platform and Dome venues. Effective communication channels have been created ensuring managers of both venues maintain regular dialogue with a view to maximising buying/negotiating power and creating a programme which complements each site.

The Financial Implications show identified savings. With the exception of Exhibition and Events, all the other budget headings identified are directly controllable costs, which can be achieved immediately. Although reducing the Exhibitions and Events budget has a potential consequence on income generation, that element will be addressed by the end of the 2006/07 Financial Year.

81 STAR CHAMBER

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Ian Barker)

Cabinet considered a report that updated on the Star Chamber meeting held since the last report to Cabinet of 10th October 2006.

The notes of the meetings held on 4th and 11th October were attached to the report for Members consideration. Page 188 CABINET 14TH NOVEMBER 2006

It was moved by Councillor Ian Barker and seconded by Councillor John Gilbert: -

“That the report be noted.”

Resolved unanimously:

(1) That the report be noted.

Officer responsible for effecting the decision:

Corporate Director (Finance and Performance).

Reason for making the decision:

The decision notes the issues considered at the most recent meeting of the Star Chamber.

82 EXCLUSION OF THE PRESS AND PUBLIC

The Chairman asked for any further declarations of interest from Cabinet Members regarding the exempt report. No declarations were made at this point.

It was moved by Councillor Ian Barker and seconded by Councillor Eileen Blamire: -

“That the following item (Minute No. 83 refers) be considered in the public part of the meeting and that the report be made available to the press and public.”

Members then voted as follows.

Resolved unanimously:

(1) That the following item (Minute No. 83 refers) be considered in the public part of the meeting and that the report be made available to the press and public.

83 FATS AND PROTEINS (UK) LTD - IPPC PERMIT DECISION

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor John Gilbert)

Cabinet considered a report that informed Cabinet of the current position with regard to the application by Fats and Proteins (UK) Ltd as outlined in the report.

Members discussed the options as set out in the report.

The options and options analysis, including risk assessment and the Officer preferred option, were set out in the report for Members consideration.

The Officer preferred option was option 2.

It was moved by Councillor John Gilbert and seconded by Councillor Ian Barker: -

“That the recommendations, as set out in the report, be approved.“ Page 189 CABINET 14TH NOVEMBER 2006

Members then voted as follows.

Resolved unanimously:

(1) That a decision be deferred on the application by Fats and Proteins (UK) Ltd for an Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control permit.

(2) That the Head of Health and Strategic Housing Services be authorised to revoke the pre-existing Authorisation held by Fats and Proteins (UK) Ltd.

Officers responsible for effecting the decision:

Corporate Director (Community Services). Head of Health and Strategic Housing Services.

Reason for making the decision:

The decision was made as Revocation, after a period of twelve months is specifically provided for in the legislation. In considering the report in the public part of the meeting, rather than an exempt item of business, Cabinet considered the relevant paragraphs of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972, and balanced this against the significant public interest.

MINUTES PUBLISHED ON: THURSDAY, 16TH NOVEMBER, 2006.

EFFECTIVE DATE FOR IMPLEMENTING THE DECISIONS CONTAINED IN THESE MINUTES: FRIDAY, 24TH NOVEMBER, 2006.

Chairman

(The meeting ended at 11.45 a.m.)

Any queries regarding these Minutes, please contact Stephen Metcalfe, Democratic Services, telephone 01524 582073, or alternatively email [email protected] Page 190

This page is intentionally left blank