Fylde and Wyre Health and Wellbeing Partnership 29 – 40

Meeting Agenda

Cabinet Town Hall, St Annes Wednesday 23 May 2012, 7:00pm

The main doors to the Town Hall will be open to the public at 6:45pm

This meeting will be filmed for publication on the Council web site

CABINET

MEMBERSHIP

LEADER – COUNCILLOR DAVID EAVES

Councillor Portfolio

KAREN BUCKLEY FINANCE & RESOURCES

SUSAN FAZACKERLEY LEISURE & CULTURE

TREVOR FIDDLER PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT

CHERYL LITTLE SOCIAL WELLBEING

ALBERT POUNDER CUSTOMER & OPERATIONAL SERVICES

THOMAS THRELFALL ENVIRONMENT & PARTNERSHIPS

Contact: Lyndsey Lacey - Telephone: (01253) 658504 - Email: [email protected]

Our Vision

Fylde Borough Council will work with partners to provide and maintain a welcoming, inclusive place with flourishing communities.

Our Corporate Objectives

• To Promote the Enhancement of the Natural & Built Environment • To Promote Cohesive Communities • To Promote a Thriving Economy • To meet the Expectations of our Customers

The Principles we will adopt in delivering our objectives are:

• To ensure our services provide value for money • To work in partnership and develop joint working

A G E N D A PUBLIC PLATFORM

To hear representations from members of the public in accordance with Cabinet procedure rules

PROCEDURAL ITEMS

1. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST: If a member requires advice on 4 Declarations of Interest he/she is advised to contact the Monitoring Officer in advance of the meeting. (For the assistance of Members an extract from the Councils Code of Conduct is attached).

To confirm as a correct record the 2. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES: 4 Minutes of the Cabinet meeting held on 3 May 2012 attached at the end of the agenda. URGENT ITEMS

3. URGENT ITEMS (The Chairman will be requested to indicate 4 whether or not he accepts that any additional item should be considered by the Cabinet as a matter of urgency, in accordance with section 100 of the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended).

4. POLICY DEVELOPMENT SCRUTINY COMMITTEE – 7 - 17 RECOMMENDATIONS

ITEMS FOR DECISION

5. MEMBER DEVELOPMENT STEERING GROUP – MINUTES 18 – 22

6. EXTERNAL CONTRACTS AND TRADING REVIEW 23 – 28

7. FYLDE AND WYRE HEALTH AND WELLBEING PARTNERSHIP 29 – 40

8. LOWTHER GARDENS TRUST 41 – 58

9. CAR PARK IMPROVEMENTS CAPITAL SCHEME 2012/13 59 – 61

10. PROMENADE FOOTWAYS CAPITAL SCHEME 2012/13 62 – 64

11. MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING – FYLDE COAST 65 – 81 STRATEGIC PLANNING 12.SPECIAL COMMUNITY FOCUS SCRUTINY COMMITTEE – 83 -89 RECOMMENDATIONS 13.GRANNYS BAY BEACH RECHARGE AND PROTECTION 90 - 94 WORKS, FAIRHAVEN - FUNDED CAPITAL BUDGET INCREASE 4 CODE OF CONDUCT 2007 Personal interests

8.—(1) You have a personal interest in any business of your authority where either—

(a) it relates to or is likely to affect—

(i) any body of which you are a member or in a position of general control or management and to which you are appointed or nominated by your authority;

(ii) any body—

(aa) exercising functions of a public nature; (bb) directed to charitable purposes; or (cc) one of whose principal purposes includes the influence of public opinion or policy (including any political party or trade union),

of which you are a member or in a position of general control or management;

(i) any employment or business carried on by you; (ii) any person or body who employs or has appointed you; (iii) any person or body, other than a relevant authority, who has made a payment to you in respect of your election or any expenses incurred by you in carrying out your duties; (iv) any person or body who has a place of business or land in your authority’s area, and in whom you have a beneficial interest in a class of securities of that person or body that exceeds the nominal value of £25,000 or one hundredth of the total issued share capital (whichever is the lower); (v) any contract for goods, services or works made between your authority and you or a firm in which you are a partner, a company of which you are a remunerated director, or a person or body of the description specified in paragraph (vi); (vi) the interests of any person from whom you have received a gift or hospitality with an estimated value of at least £25; (vii) any land in your authority’s area in which you have a beneficial interest; (viii) any land where the landlord is your authority and you are, or a firm in which you are a partner, a company of which you are a remunerated director, or a person or body of the description specified in paragraph (vi) is, the tenant; (xi) any land in the authority’s area for which you have a licence (alone or jointly with others) to occupy for 28 days or longer; or

(b) a decision in relation to that business might reasonably be regarded as affecting your well-being or financial position or the well-being or financial position of a relevant person to a greater extent than the majority of other council tax payers, ratepayers or inhabitants of the ward, as the case may be, affected by the decision;

(2) In sub-paragraph (1)(b), a relevant person is—

(a) a member of your family or any person with whom you have a close association; or (b) any person or body who employs or has appointed such persons, any firm in which they are a partner, or any company of which they are directors; (c) any person or body in whom such persons have a beneficial interest in a class of securities exceeding the nominal value of £25,000; or (d) any body of a type described in sub-paragraph (1)(a)(i) or (ii).

Disclosure of personal interests

9.—(1) Subject to sub-paragraphs (2) to (7), where you have a personal interest in any business of your authority and you attend a meeting of your authority at which the business is considered, you must disclose to that meeting the existence and nature of that interest at the commencement of that consideration, or when the interest becomes apparent. (2) Where you have a personal interest in any business of your authority which relates to or is likely to affect a person described in paragraph 8(1)(a)(i) or 8(1)(a)(ii)(aa), you need only disclose to the meeting the existence and nature of that interest when you address the meeting on that business. (3) Where you have a personal interest in any business of the authority of the type mentioned in paragraph 8(1)(a)(viii), you need not disclose the nature or existence of that interest to the meeting if the interest was registered more than three years before the date of the meeting. (4) Sub-paragraph (1) only applies where you are aware or ought reasonably to be aware of the existence of the personal interest.

5 (5) Where you have a personal interest but, by virtue of paragraph 14, sensitive information relating to it is not registered in your authority’s register of members’ interests, you must indicate to the meeting that you have a personal interest, but need not disclose the sensitive information to the meeting. (6) Subject to paragraph 12(1)(b), where you have a personal interest in any business of your authority and you have made an executive decision in relation to that business, you must ensure that any written statement of that decision records the existence and nature of that interest. (7) In this paragraph, “executive decision” is to be construed in accordance with any regulations made by the Secretary of State under section 22 of the Local Government Act 2000(d).

Prejudicial interest generally

10.—(1) Subject to sub-paragraph (2), where you have a personal interest in any business of your authority you also have a prejudicial interest in that business where the interest is one which a member of the public with knowledge of the relevant facts would reasonably regard as so significant that it is likely to prejudice your judgement of the public interest.

(2) You do not have a prejudicial interest in any business of the authority where that business—

(a) does not affect your financial position or the financial position of a person or body described in paragraph 8; (b) does not relate to the determining of any approval, consent, licence, permission or registration in relation to you or any person or body described in paragraph 8; or (c) relates to the functions of your authority in respect of—

(i) housing, where you are a tenant of your authority provided that those functions do not relate particularly to your tenancy or lease; (ii) school meals or school transport and travelling expenses, where you are a parent or guardian of a child in full time education, or are a parent governor of a school, unless it relates particularly to the school which the child attends; (iii) statutory sick pay under Part XI of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, where you are in receipt of, or are entitled to the receipt of, such pay; (iv) an allowance, payment or indemnity given to members; (v) any ceremonial honour given to members; and (vi) setting council tax or a precept under the Local Government Finance Act 1992.

Prejudicial interests arising in relation to overview and scrutiny committees

11.— You also have a prejudicial interest in any business before an overview and scrutiny committee of your authority (or of a sub-committee of such a committee) where—

(a) that business relates to a decision made (whether implemented or not) or action taken by your authority’s executive or another of your authority’s committees, sub-committees, joint committees or joint sub-committees; and (b) at the time the decision was made or action was taken, you were a member of the executive, committee, sub-committee, joint committee or joint sub-committee mentioned in paragraph (a) and you were present when that decision was made or action was taken.

Effect of prejudicial interests on participation

12.—(1) Subject to sub-paragraph (2), where you have a prejudicial interest in any business of your authority—

(a) you must withdraw from the room or chamber where a meeting considering the business is being held— (i) in a case where sub-paragraph (2) applies, immediately after making representations, answering questions or giving evidence; (ii) in any other case, whenever it becomes apparent that the business is being considered at that meeting;

unless you have obtained a dispensation from your authority’s standards committee;

(b) you must not exercise executive functions in relation to that business; and (c) you must not seek improperly to influence a decision about that business.

(2) Where you have a prejudicial interest in any business of your authority, you may attend a meeting (including a meeting of the overview and scrutiny committee of your authority or of a sub-committee of such a committee) but only for the purpose of making representations, answering questions or giving evidence relating to the business, provided that the public are also allowed to attend the meeting for the same purpose, whether under a statutory right or otherwise.

6 REPORT

REPORT OF MEETING DATE ITEM NO

RESOURCES DIRECTORATE - FOR THE CHAIRMAN OF THE POLICY CABINET 23 MAY 2012 4 DEVELOPMENT SCRUTINY COMMITTEE

POLICY DEVELOPMENT SCRUTINY COMMITTEE - RECOMMENDATIONS

Public Item This item is for consideration in the public part of the meeting.

Summary

The Policy Development Scrutiny Committee met on 8 March 2012 and on 19 April 2012, and there were a number of recommendations which Cabinet may wish to note.

Recommendation 1. To consider and note the recommendations of the Policy Development Scrutiny Committee meetings of 8 March 2012 and 19 April 2012.

Reasons for recommendation

To allow formal consideration of recommendations arising from Policy Development Scrutiny Committee meetings.

Cabinet Portfolio

The items fall within the following Cabinet portfolio(s): Finance and Resources – Councillor Karen Buckley Leisure & Culture - Councillor Susan Fazackerley

Continued....

7 Report

8 March 2012

1 To consider endorsing the recommendations of the Policy Development Scrutiny Committee meeting of 8 March 2012 as follows:

Capital Programme 2011/12 to 2015/16 – 3rd Quarter Update to 31/12/11

1 To note the Capital Programme position as detailed within the report.

2 To require a report on the performance, sustainability, and value for money of both pools to come to the Policy Development Scrutiny Committee.

General Fund Budget Monitoring Report 2011/12 – position as at Quarter Ended 31/12/11

1 To note the position and comments as outlined in the report and to refer committee’s comments as noted within the body of the minutes (appended) to Cabinet.

19 April 2012

2 To consider endorsing the recommendations of the Policy Development Scrutiny Committee meeting of 19 April 2012 as follows:

Lowther Gardens Trust – Recommendations of the Working Group

1. To recommend that the proposed funding for the Lowther Pavilion element of the Trust’s business should be released as long as there are checks and balances in place, outlined below.

2. That the Trust should provide the Working Group with a copy of their policy relating to the management of conflicts of interest, and a copy of the register of interests

3. At the quarterly meeting required by the Service Level Agreement, alongside the management accounts detailing actual expenditure and income against budget, any updates to the register of interest should be declared,

4. That the Trust should report annually to the Scrutiny Committee regarding their performance measured against the Service Level Agreement.

8 External Contracts and Trading Review

1. To recommend to Cabinet Option 1 (trading as now, but with improvements brought in) for moving forward with external trading.

2. That a further review of trading is undertaken, once there is sufficient financial information available under the improved arrangements (as suggested in within Section 8 of the report, appended); and that this should be monitored by scrutiny through a further report to committee within 12 months.

Conclusion

There were no other specific recommendations directed to Cabinet for consideration for approval. For information the minutes of the meetings of the Policy Development Scrutiny Committee, and some relevant information from the reports, are attached as appendices.

Report Author Tel Date Doc ID

Annie Womack (01253) 658423 24 April 2012 PDSC Recs

List of Background Papers

Name of document Date Where available for inspection

Agenda and Minutes of 08 March 2012 Policy Development www.fylde.gov.uk Scrutiny Committee 19 April 2012

IMPLICATIONS Finance None arising directly from this report Legal None arising directly from this report Community Safety None arising directly from this report Human Rights and None arising directly from this report Equalities Sustainability None arising directly from this report Health & Safety and Risk None arising directly from this report Management

Attached documents

1. Policy Development Scrutiny Committee minutes 2. Extract from External Trading Report

9 Policy Development Scrutiny Committee – 08 March 2012

Policy Development Scrutiny

Committee

Date 08 March 2012

Venue Town Hall, St Annes

Committee members Councillor Fabian Craig-Wilson (Chairman) Councillor Leonard Davies (Vice-Chairman)

Ben Aitken, Frank Andrews, Julie Brickles, David Chedd, Simon Cox, John Davies, David Donaldson, Charlie Duffy, Edward Nash, Elizabeth Oades, Richard Redcliffe, Elaine Silverwood, Viv Willder.

Other Councillors

Officers Allan Oldfield, Paul O’Donoghue, Tracy Scholes, Clare Platt, Paul Walker, Ian Curtis, Annie Womack

Public Platform

There were no requests to speak.

1. Declarations of interest Members were reminded that any personal/prejudicial interests should be declared as required by the Council’s Code of Conduct adopted in accordance with the Local Government Act 2000. There were no declarations.

2. Confirmation of minutes

RESOLVED: To approve the minutes of the Policy Development Scrutiny Committee meeting held on 22 February 2012 as a correct record for signature by the chairman.

3. Substitute members Cllr Viv Willder for Cllr Susan Ashton.

10 Policy Development Scrutiny Committee – 08 March 2012

4. Capital Programme 2011/12 to 2015/16 – 3rd Quarter Update to 31/12/11

The Chairman advised members that this, as the third quarter report, was now over 2 months old and there will have been some changes to the information in front of them.

The report was introduced by Paul O’Donoghue, the council’s Section 151 officer and Head of Finance. He told members that the report was an update of the council’s 5 year capital programme, including year to date expenditure and setting out the latest phasing of the programme.

He gave an overview of each of the sections contained within the report and drew members’ attention to areas of significance, including key financial risks at the end of the third quarter.

Members raised queries about several items, including the accommodation project. Mr Paul Walker, Director of Development Services, told members that the accommodation working group was not willing to commit funds just yet to the refurbishment project, until a point is reached that there is confidence that the projected receipts will come in, from the two sites where sales are provisionally agreed.

He was also asked whether the council was optimistic that, if everything goes as expected, we can complete the accommodation scheme as envisaged. Mr Walker confirmed that the scheme was cost-limited, and the end result will reflect that.

A comment was made that there appeared to be a significant variance between estimates and actuals in some schemes, such as St Annes 2012 under Development Services. Mr Walker explained that the work had now been committed, was under way, and the expenditure was back-loaded towards the end of the year, when regeneration work would be completed in time for the Open Golf.

Mr O’Donoghue was asked whether all variances which remained to be spent would be spent by year end, or whether there would be money left over. He replied that to his knowledge there was no significant change to expected outcomes in terms of spend.

In response to a question Mr O’Donoghue said that at the moment there was not a budget for each quarter, just one budget for the whole year.

There was a discussion about the pools, St Annes and Kirkham, and it was suggested that a review of performance, sustainability and value for money should be reported to scrutiny committee. It was acknowledged that this issue cuts across both capital and revenue programmes.

After the debate the committee RESOLVED:

11 Policy Development Scrutiny Committee – 08 March 2012

1 To note the Capital Programme position as detailed within the report.

2 To require a report on the performance, sustainability, and value for money of both pools to come to the Policy Development Scrutiny Committee.

There was no recorded vote as the Chairman decided that the matter was not controversial.

5. General Fund Budget Monitoring Report 2011/12 – position as at Quarter Ended 31/12/11

Mr O’Donoghue also presented this report which is designed to highlight revenue budget variances and certain budget areas for further attention. He referred members to Appendix A (the “hotspots”) which showed 3 items with a potentially adverse variance (Lowther, Building Control and Coast & Countryside – sandwinning); and Appendix B which tabled savings targets, all showing an anticipated Favourable outturn with the exception of Accommodation Review – Building Costs, which have been subject to delay from the assumed disposal dates due to ongoing negotiations.

Members asked about the Lowther Gardens Trust, for example what controls were there over the expenditure on Lowther. Clare Platt, Director for Community Services said that officers were working closely with the Trustees to facilitate a handover of the management of the asset, and in the management of the budget. However, there had been some duplication in terms of website costs, phone cost, box office costs etc, and also extra staffing costs around the installation of the smoke vents.

Several other queries were raised, one of which was about the adverse variance on Building Control. Mr Walker, explained that the downturn in building was the main cause, and as a consequence part of the solution had been to remove some resources from Building Control.

It was asked whether the budget for Standards Committee Investigations would be taken out in future as the Standards Committee itself was to be scrapped. Mr Ian Curtis, the council’s Monitoring Officer, advised that there would still need to be a Standards framework to enable investigation of breaches of the future Code of Conduct as adopted by the council, and it would be premature to remove it at this stage.

Mr Allan Oldfield, Chief Executive was asked to provide an explanation relating to the level of vacancy savings, which he did, and also gave an assurance that Fylde Borough Council was as a result in a better financial position and still had a viable and flexible workforce.

Due to the timing of this report, he was also asked whether the variances reported within it, both favourable and adverse, had held and he advised

12 Policy Development Scrutiny Committee – 08 March 2012 members that the budget monitoring had been successful and that the report in front of them reflected a fairly consistent picture going forward.

It was noted that many of the car parking fees showed a potential adverse variance and Mr Walker explained that they had to be estimated and weather could have a huge impact on income. Individual car park performances in terms of operating costs against income was being looked at by the Task & Finish Group on the car parking strategy.

Following the debate, the committee RESOLVED:

1. To note the position and comments as outlined in the report and to refer committee’s comments to Cabinet.

There was no recorded vote as the Chairman decided that the matter was not controversial.

13 Policy Development Scrutiny Committee – 19 April 2012

Policy Development Scrutiny

Committee

Date 19 April 2012

Venue Town Hall, St Annes

Committee members Councillor Fabian Craig-Wilson (Chairman) Councillor Leonard Davies (Vice-Chairman)

Ben Aitken, Susan Ashton, Julie Brickles, David Chedd, Simon Cox, John Davies, David Donaldson, Charlie Duffy, Edward Nash, Elizabeth Oades, Richard Redcliffe, Elaine Silverwood, Viv Willder.

Other Councillors Susan Fazackerley

Officers Allan Oldfield, Clare Platt, Paul O’Donoghue, Mark Wilde, Annie Womack

Public Platform

There were no requests to speak.

Cllr Simon Cox declared a personal interest in Item 9 as his company was providing accountancy services to the Lowther Gardens Trust.

Cllr Elaine Silverwood declared a personal interest in Item 9 because her brother runs the café at Lowther Pavilion.

2. Confirmation of minutes

RESOLVED: To approve the minutes of the Policy Development Scrutiny Committee meeting held on 08 March 2012 as a correct record for signature by the chairman.

14 Policy Development Scrutiny Committee – 19 April 2012

3. Substitute members Cllr Viv Willder for Cllr Frank Andrews

4. Lowther Gardens Trust – Recommendations of the Working Group

This report was introduced by Cllr Len Davies, who was the Chairman of the Lowther Gardens Trust Working Group. Further detail was provided by Clare Platt, Director of Community Services. She explained the background to the work undertaken on transferring the management of the Pavilion away from the Council to the Trust. The latest report, including the Lowther Gardens Trust Business Plan, had been presented to Cabinet on 16 November 2011. Cabinet had resolved to refer the matter for scrutiny, and at the meeting of the Policy Development Scrutiny Committee on 8 December 2011, members had requested that a Working Group be formed to look into the issues raised.

She gave a resume of the review carried out by the Group and the areas for clarification which had been covered.

Members raised several queries and it was established that in order to record any potential conflicts of interest, Mr Lince the Acting Chairman of the Trust, had provided a policy to govern the declarations of interest of its members, and also that individual members of the Trust’s Board had completed the forms which would form a register of interests.

There was also concern that Trustees should seek to demonstrate a clearer separation of duties than currently appears to exists between the members of the Trust and the officers. Ms Platt advised that this was difficult to monitor and that it was a matter for the Trustees to manage for themselves. However, if there were ongoing concerns they could be raised by Cllr Fazackerley, who is the council’s representative on the Board of Trustees, at Board meetings.

In answer to a query, Ms Platt confirmed that the SLA would last for as long as the council was paying subsidy to the Trust – in this case 5 years. She also agreed that the information provided quarterly to the Trust would relate to performance, and the financial data would be actual income and expenditure, not forecasts, and would be in the form of management accounts.

It was suggested that the annual report from the Trust to the scrutiny committee should also include the financial performance data.

After the debate the committee RESOLVED:

15 Policy Development Scrutiny Committee – 19 April 2012

1. To recommend that the proposed funding for the Lowther Pavilion element of the Trust’s business should be released as long as there are checks and balances in place, outlined below.

2. That the Trust should provide the Working Group with a copy of their policy relating to the management of conflicts of interest, and a copy of the register of interests

4. That the Trust should report annually to the Scrutiny Committee regarding their performance measured against the Service Level Agreement.

There was no recorded vote as the Chairman decided that the matter was not controversial.

5. Exclusion of the Public

Members were invited to consider passing a resolution to exclude the public in accordance with the provisions of Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 on the grounds that the business to be discussed was exempt information as defined in paragraph 3 of Schedule 12A of the Act.

Members RESOLVED to exclude the public.

There was no recorded vote as the Chairman decided that the matter was not controversial.

6. External Contracts and Trading Review

Ms Platt introduced this report which provided an independent assessment of the current external grounds maintenance contracts operated by the parks service. She explained that Cabinet had made a decision in January 2012 not to pursue an “arms length” company of the council to deliver a number of key front end services. However, it had been recognised that the parks team had secured external contract work over several years and their success had been a major consideration in the original proposal of an arms length operation.

16 Policy Development Scrutiny Committee – 19 April 2012

However the level of surplus and other benefits had not been formally reported, and Cabinet therefore approved the commission of an independent review.

Mr John Dakin, of John Dakin Consulting Ltd, presented the detail of his report to the committee. He itemised the number and value of existing contracts and outlined the strengths and weaknesses of the council’s existing approach to external trading.

He gave a brief overview of his recommendations and the rationale behind them. There were four options that he presented for the committee’s consideration.

Mark Wilde, Parks Manager, gave the committee members a history of the external trading undertaken by the Parks Department and how the number and size of contracts had increased over recent years. Paul O’Donoghue, Chief Financial Officer, explained to members that the approach to accounting for external contracts had been enhanced during 2011/12 in recognition of the significant increase in income from trading generated during the year.

Members referred to the financial information included within Mr Dakin’s report and commented that it was difficult to make informed decisions when there was insufficient data included in the report and similarly a lack of clarity regarding how overheads were allocated to the contract costs. However the overall net contribution to overheads and profit that was generated from the external contracts was laid out in the report.

When they were reviewing the proposed four options, committee members made it clear that they were interested in value for money, and whilst there was no appetite for seeking out contracts which did not provide financial benefit, similarly there was a stated preference that the council should not shy away from contracts simply because they were not based in a strictly local area.

The point was made that several of the recommendation in the body of Mr Dakin’s report were operational and procedural issues which were within the remit of officers to deliver as part of the overall programme to secure external contracts.

Following a detailed debate, the committee RESOLVED:

1. To recommend to Cabinet Option 1 (trading as now, but with improvements brought in) for moving forward with external trading.

2. That a further review of trading is undertaken, once there is sufficient financial information available under the improved arrangements (as suggested in within Section 8 of the report); and that this should be monitored by scrutiny through a further report to committee within 12 months.

There was no recorded vote as the Chairman decided that the matter was not controversial.

17 Policy Development Scrutiny Committee – 19 April 2012

Where we have identified any third party copyright material you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.

This document/publication is also available on our website at www.fylde.gov.uk

Any enquiries regarding this document/publication should be sent to us at the Town Hall, St Annes Road West, St Annes FY8 1LW, or to [email protected]

18 REPORT

REPORT OF MEETING DATE ITEM

MEMBER DEVELOPMENT CABINET 23 MAY 2012 5 STEERING GROUP

MEMBER DEVELOPMENT STEERING GROUP - MINUTES

Public Item This item is for consideration in the public part of the meeting.

Summary The report presents the minutes of the meeting of the Member Development Steering Group held on 30 March 2012

Recommendations To consider the minutes attached and make any recommendations relating thereto. Reasons for recommendation To enable appropriate planning of the member development work and allow formal consideration of the recommendations arising from the meeting.

Alternative options considered and rejected One of the requirements of the Elected Member Development Charter is to ensure that there are clear lines of communication and an appropriate mechanism in place for the reporting of the work of the Member Development Steering Group to an appropriate committee. To not present the minutes would be contrary to the requirements of the Charter.

19 Cabinet Portfolio The item falls within the following Cabinet portfolio: Customer and Operational Services: Councillor Albert Pounder

Report To consider endorsing the recommendations of the Member Development Steering Group which met on 30 March 2012 as detailed in the minutes attached.

Report Author Tel Date Doc ID

Lyndsey Lacey (01253) 658504 April 2012 MD

List of Background Papers

Where available for Name of document Date inspection

Member Development File 2011/12 Town Hall, St Annes

IMPLICATIONS

Finance There are no specific financial implications as budget in place

Legal No implications

Community Safety No implications

Human Rights and Equalities No specific implications

Sustainability and Environmental No specific implications Impact

Health & Safety and Risk No implications Management

MEMBER DEVELOPMENT STEERING GROUP

Notes of a meeting of the Member Development Steering Group held on Friday, 30 March 2012 in the Reception Room at the Town Hall, St Annes.

Present:

Members

Chairman – Councillor Edward Nash Vice Chairman – Councillor Fabian Craig-Wilson Portfolio Holder for Customer and Operational Services Councillors Frank Andrews, Julie Brickles, John Singleton

Officers

Lyndsey Lacey – Principal Democratic Services Officer Mike Wharton – Member Development Advisor at North West Employers

1. Apologies

Apologies were received from Councillor John Davies

2. Minutes of the previous meeting

The Chairman asked members to consider the minutes of the meeting of the last meeting. In doing so, he made reference to the item on core competencies and skills set framework and asked Councillor Singleton for an updated report on the matter following consideration at Audit Committee on 29 March. Councillor Singleton then went on the explain the actions that were agreed at the meeting.

IT WAS AGREED – To approve the notes of the previous meeting held on 17 February 2012.

3. Chairman’s Report

The Chairman, Councillor Edward Nash welcomed Mike Wharton (Member Development Advisor) at North West Employers and Councillor Albert Pounder (Portfolio Holder for Customer and Operational Services) to the meeting.

In his report, Councillor Nash made reference to his attendance at Cabinet in terms of matters arising from the minutes of the last meeting. He also made reference to the future work of the group and its 5 year plan on ICT/social media arrangements.

IT WAS AGREED to note the report.

Notes – Member Development Steering Group – 30 March 2012

4. PDP Arrangements

It was reported that Juile Gelder (Management Consultant) was unable to attend the meeting to brief members on the above.

IT WAS AGREED to invite Ms Gelder to the next meeting of the group.

5. Charter Arrangements

Mr Mike Wharton (Member Development Advisor at North West Employers) attended the meeting to brief the group on the support offered by North West Employers. In addition, he updated the group on the outcome of a recent review of the Member Development Charter arrangements and the associated changes/implications.

A copy of the revised Charter process document was circulated at the meeting.

Mr Wharton explained that the ethos of the Charter is built around “involving members” in their own development. He stated that the Charter would still operate at two levels although a third element (Level 3) was still under construction.

Mr Wharton further reported that a Level 1 review needed to be undertaken every 3/4 years (to demonstrate that the Council was maintaining standards previously set) unless the Council decided to prepare for another Level 2 subject. Regardless of the decision, the Council would still retain its Level 2 status attained in 2009.

Mr Wharton went on to remind the group that Fylde was one of the first local authorities to apply for Level 2 of the North West Charter (achieved in 2009) on e-communication.

Mr Wharton explained that North West Employers had been asked to look at the feasibility of introducing a bespoke (Level 3) review but this was still under construction.

A full discussion took place on the advantages and disadvantages of each option were considered by the group.

IT WAS AGREED to undertake a Level 1 review at the earliest opportunity and the work/ resources required to undertake an additional Level 2 Charter assessment be explored further at a future meting of the group.

6. Learning Hours

Member of the Group were asked to consider whether there was any

Notes – Member Development Steering Group – 30 March 2012

merit in continuing with the Learning Hour arrangements.

In summary, the group found the Learning Hours to be most valuable and helpful in updating their knowledge and skills and would like to see the arrangements continue.

Following discussion IT WAS AGREED:

1. To continue with the Learning Hour arrangements

2. To present an updated timetable to group at the next appropriate meeting.

3. To ask the Chief Executive to deliver a Learning Hour on his Vision and future aspirations for the Council.

7. Next Meeting

IT WAS AGREED to the next meeting of the Group being held on 4 May 2012 at 14:30 in the Reception Room

------

23 REPORT

REPORT OF MEETING DATE ITEM NO

DIRECTOR COMMUNITY CABINET 23 MAY 2012 6 SERVICES

EXTERNAL CONTRACTS AND TRADING REVIEW

Public Item

This item is for consideration in the public part of the meeting.

Summary

The report highlights the outcome of the review of external grounds maintenance contracts operated by the parks service, presented at the Policy Development Scrutiny Committee on 19 April 2012, and outlines the recommendations from that Committee to Cabinet.

Recommendations

1. That Cabinet considers the resolution of the Policy Development Scrutiny Committee of 19 April 2012 in terms of the external contracts and trading review.

2. That Cabinet specifically endorses:

• continuing trading (without specifically limiting the geographical footprint) and implementing the remaining process and practice improvements outlined in paragraph 8 of this report

• a further review of the external trading activity by the Policy Development Scrutiny Committee within 12 months

Portfolio Holder

The Cabinet Portfolio Holder for Leisure & Culture is Councillor Susan Fazackerley.

Continued....

24 Report

1. In January 2012 a decision was approved by Cabinet not to pursue an ‘arms length’ company of the Council to deliver a number of key front end services including refuse, cleansing, parks and grounds maintenance. However, at the same time it was recognised that the parks team had for several years secured external contract work with other public sector organisations and their success had been a major driver in considering an ‘arms length’ operation.

2. The excellent work of the parks team was applauded and it was evident that external contracts attracted income for the Council. However, the level of profit and other associated benefits that this income brought to the Council had not been formally quantified or articulated. It was approved at Cabinet that in order to ensure the Council gets the maximum benefit from external trading with other public sector partners, and to be able to support the continuation of the arrangements, that an independent review will be commissioned.

3. The independent review was tasked with two objectives:

• To establish the value that the existing contracts add to the organisation

• To provide recommendations as to the best future service option for external trading with public sector partners

4. An independent consultant with significant experience in public sector contracting, client service and senior management was commissioned to deliver a report based on the two objectives, agreed as follows:

The purpose of the commission is to undertake an independent review of the financial and other benefits to the Council of its approach to trading for grounds maintenance and related services and make recommendations on the way forward.

5. Subsequently the Policy Development Scrutiny Committee met on 19 April 2012 to consider the findings of the independent review and the recommendations made, with a view to advising Cabinet and officers on the future direction of trading opportunities.

6. The report identified four options for future trading:

• Option 1 – External trading as now but with improvements made to process and practices

• Option 2 – The same as option 1 but limiting the geographical area covered by the work

• Option 3 – A managed end to all the contracts

• Option 4 – Continue trading and include a wider scope of services e.g. cleansing

25 7. The report recognised that the value of external contracting had increased significantly during 2011/12 (such that the income from external contracting is estimated to be c£664k in 2012/13), and that in recognition of this growth the approach to bidding and accounting for external contracts had been improved. More detailed financial implications are highlighted at the end of this report.

8. The report concluded by identifying the following recommendations:

• A more localised approach should be taken to external trading with immediate effect, whilst pursuing the improvements identified in the report (Option 2 - limit activity to Fylde coast and Preston areas), pending the further work identified in the recommendations.

• A more strategic and corporate approach should be taken to external trading, including improving both elected member and senior officer awareness.

• The Council sets clear objectives and financial targets for external trading, in particular for surpluses/contributions to overheads etc.

• The approach to corporate and departmental recharges and treatment of overheads is revised to improve transparency, consistency and understanding.

• A corporate framework for external trading is developed and implemented, which includes:

o Ground rules on how corporate and departmental recharges and other overheads should be dealt with, including clarity on what are/are not direct costs and consideration of whether to seek more accurate year- end costings.

o Guidance on how people, plant, other assets and consumables are charged out to individual sites, including reference to the Financial Regulations on virement between cost centres; and how the costs of bidding are recovered.

o Systems to monitor whether agreed financial targets are being met, including allocating responsibility.

o Guidance on legal issues, including handling employee TUPE transfers at the beginning/end of contracts.

o Other relevant guidelines/rules, including agreed standards for support services e.g. on responsiveness.

o High level approval, including the Section 151 Officer, before deciding to apply to bid for any external works.

• Establishing a task and finish corporate team, involving appropriate services, e.g. Accountancy, HR and operational, to approve/work on all tender bids above an agreed value.

26 • High level approval, including the Section 151 Officer, where appropriate based on a business case/risk assessment, before finalising bids/prices for any external works.

• The merits of trading locally with public bodies for other relevant ‘public realm’ services, e.g. cleansing, are considered (Option 4).

• The possible benefits of further partnerships with the County Council for other ‘public realm’ services are considered.

• The potential for enhancing services and efficiency within the new Community Services Directorate, for example area based and joined up service delivery, supervision, monitoring and enforcement is considered.

• The opportunities and possible restrictions created by the Localism Act 2011 in relation to external trading are considered, including obtaining legal advice.

• The Council considers whether the extensive use of agency workers for grounds maintenance provides value for money, particularly in the light of recent legal requirements.

• Consideration is given to transferring responsibility for small plant and equipment to the Fleet Manager, in a similar manner that is used already for larger plant etc.

• A concise business plan is produced for external trading and kept up to date

• The key procedures for external trading, e.g. costing, bidding, operational and customer liaison are brought together and documented.

• A further review of trading is undertaken, once there is sufficient financial information available under the improved arrangements.

9. Scrutiny Members discussed the detail of the report, establishing the level of surplus (contribution to overheads and profit) attributable to the trading activities.

10. The minutes of that meeting are included in the relevant report of the Policy Development Scrutiny Committee considered elsewhere in this agenda. The Committee resolved the following:

• To recommend to Cabinet Option 1 (trading as now, but with improvements brought in) for moving forward with external trading.

• That a further review of trading is undertaken, once there is sufficient financial information available under the improved arrangements and that this should be monitored by scrutiny through a further report to committee within 12 months.

11. The recommendations identified in the review report, and identified here at paragraph 8, form the basis of the improvements required to the process and

27 practice of trading activity; except that trading should not be specifically limited to the local area.

IMPLICATIONS

Finance Detailed financial analysis of the budgeted income and expenditure from external contracts was included in the report to Policy Development Scrutiny Committee. In summary, the report set out that external contracts are estimated to generate income of c£664k in 2012/13 with direct costs (e.g. direct labour, vehicles and material costs) of c£473k associated with the work. This leaves a contribution to overheads and profit of c£191k in respect of external parks trading. Overheads and recharges (e.g. a share of existing service-management and support service costs) charged into the contracts are estimated at c£185k, leaving a net profit of c£6k on the work.

Continuing trading as recommended in this report will preserve the budgeted contribution to overheads and profit of c£191k generated from external parks trading.

Legal The Council is limited to trading with other public sector organisations designated under the Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act 1970 other than through a company.

Community Safety There are no direct community safety implications.

Human Rights and There are no direct human rights and equalities Equalities implications arising from the report.

Sustainability The sustainability of external contract work is dependent on the continued and required contribution to overheads as well as the ability to generate surplus for the Council.

Health & Safety and There are no direct health and safety or risk management Risk Management implications arising from the report.

Report Author Tel Date Doc ID

23.5.12 External Clare Platt (01253) 658602 23 May 2012 Contracts and Trading Review

28 List of Background Papers

Name of document Date Where available for inspection

Agenda & minutes Policy Development 19 April 2012 www.fylde.gov.uk Scrutiny Committee

Appendices

None

29 REPORT

REPORT OF MEETING DATE ITEM NO

DIRECTOR COMMUNITY CABINET 23 MAY 2012 7 SERVICES

FYLDE AND WYRE HEALTH AND WELLBEING PARTNERSHIP

Public Item

This item is for consideration in the public part of the meeting.

Summary

The report summarises the changes to local public health responsibilities and discusses the proposal for a Fylde and Wyre Health and Wellbeing Board.

Recommendations

1. That in order to influence local public health priorities, Cabinet agrees that the Council should participate in the proposed Fylde and Wyre Health and Wellbeing Partnership.

2. That Members consider the proposal and provide feedback on the proposed partnership as appropriate.

Portfolio Holder

Portfolio Holder for Social Wellbeing - Councillor Cheryl Little.

Report

1. On 27 March 2012 the Health and Social Care Bill received Royal Assent to become the Health and Social Care Act 2012. The Act puts in place the basic architecture of the reformed public health system by giving new duties and powers

Continued....

30 to local authorities (unitary and upper tier) and the Secretary of State for Health. It takes effect from April 2013.

2. Key changes include: • The abolition of Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) and Strategic Health Authorities (SHAs) • The formation of GP-led Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) to manage the bulk of the NHS commissioning budget and take on the role of local leaders of the NHS. • Performance management of CCGs and some commissioning functions to be carried out by the national NHS Commissioning Board. • The transfer of Public Health functions to local authorities (unitary and upper tier) and Public Health England • Greater scrutiny and accountability through the establishment of Health and Wellbeing Boards and the creation of Health Watch Groups.

3. This report solely addresses the transfer of public health responsibilities brought about by the Health and Social Care Act. The proposed reforms statutorily place the County Council as the leading organisation for improving and protecting the health of the public in Lancashire.

• Health Improvement: LCC will be responsible for improving the health of the population, reducing health inequalities and for delivery of national and local outcome measures. Commissioning of health improvement programmes currently managed through PCTs will transfer to LCC. • Health Protection: In addition to its current statutory duties related to emergency planning and civil contingencies, LCC will be responsible for developing the plans which are needed to mount responses to public health outbreaks and incidents. Public Health England (PHE – a national public health service) is being constructed as an Executive Agency within the Department of Health which will provide specialist public health expertise to support delivery of this function. • Health Service Planning and Improvement: Public Health support to NHS commissioning is currently provided by PCTs. With the advent of clinical commissioning and shift of public health expertise to local authorities, there will be a requirement that LCC assumes ownership of public health specialist capacity and provides this support to Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs). • Health Intelligence: Some Public Health Intelligence functions will shift from the Regional Public Health Observatories to PHE but others will either disappear or be moved to local authorities. Public Health Intelligence capacity also exists in PCTs and has been used to support the Joint Strategic Needs Assessment (JSNA). LCC has an opportunity to coalesce the public health analytical capacity from the three PCTs with the current JSNA service (which is currently jointly funded by the PCTs.

4. As a consequence the County Council has established a shadow Health and Wellbeing Board which will operate in shadow format until the legislation officially establishes it on 1 April 2013. The membership of the Board is identified at Appendix A of Appendix 1. The Health and Wellbeing Board will oversee public

31 health improvement and protection in Lancashire, producing and implementing a health and wellbeing strategy.

5. However given this wide remit the County Council will be relying on the District Councils to support health improvement activity. It is also important that the District Councils influence the public health agenda, and in particular the CCGs locally.

6. The proposed Fylde and Wyre Health and Wellbeing Partnership (Appendix 1) is co-terminous with the Fylde and Wyre CCG, providing an opportunity to influence the local public health agenda.

7. The proposed representatives are identified in the draft partnership. Members may consider it appropriate to recommend that the relevant District Council representative on the (shadow) Health and Wellbeing Board should be one of the District Council representatives on the partnership

8. Given the uncertainty about future funding of Local Strategic Partnerships, participating in this partnership would provide the opportunity to continue influencing public health improvement locally.

IMPLICATIONS

Finance There are no direct financial implications.

Legal There are no direct legal implications.

Community Safety There are no direct community safety implications.

Human Rights and There are no direct human rights and equalities Equalities implications arising from the report.

Sustainability There are no direct sustainability implications.

Health & Safety and There are no direct health and safety or risk management Risk Management implications arising from the report.

Report Author Tel Date Doc ID

23.5.12 Fylde & Wyre Clare Platt (01253) 658602 23 May 2012 H&W Partnership

List of Background Papers

Name of document Date Where available for inspection

32 Appendices

Appendix 1: NHS North Lancashire – Proposal for a Fylde & Wyre Health and Wellbeing Partnership

33 Appendix 1

Proposal for a Fylde and Wyre Health & Wellbeing Partnership

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to: o Provide a basis for the development of the discussion amongst the Fylde and Wyre Clinical Commissioning Group(CCG) and District Councils (and other key stakeholders) in relation to the emerging PH and Health and Wellbeing structures and processes o Provide some context and background to the emerging Health and Wellbeing processes o Outline some early thoughts about how local organisations can influence the Health and Wellbeing processes and priorities emerging at Lancashire level o Gain some collective understanding of the complexities

1. Context 1.1 The Health & Social Care Bill 2011 (currently going through Parliament) establishes health and wellbeing boards as committees of upper-tier local authorities responsible for:

• Encouraging integrated working • Developing Joint Strategic Needs Assessments, and • Devising joint health and wellbeing strategies for their population

1.2 They will set the priorities for local action and enable the transformation of services through collaborative leadership1. Local authorities are currently trying to address the policy changes brought about through lower funding settlements resulting from financial turmoil in the markets. The NHS is also currently undergoing a period of significant change, including the transfer of Public Health responsibilities to top tier local authorities2 as well as the creation of Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs). Towards Authorisation3 requires each emerging CCG to seek authorisation through the NHS Commissioning Board. This requires each CCG to have a commissioning plan and it is intended that this will be in line with the relevant health and wellbeing board strategy. Collaboration between CCGs and health and wellbeing boards will help them achieve authorisation, working to develop a shared understanding of the needs of their population and developing mutual priorities across the broader landscape of health and care, not simply from a health perspective.

1 Joint Strategic Needs Assessment & Joint health and wellbeing strategies explained http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/documents/digitalasset/dh_131733.pdf 2 Liberating the NHS – Legislative Framework and Next Steps http://dh.gov.uk/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_122661 3 Developing Clinical Commissioning Groups: Towards Authorisation http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/documents/digitalasset/dh_130318.pdf

2. Local Landscape 2.1 It has already been agreed by the cabinet of Lancashire County Council that a shadow health and wellbeing board be setup for Lancashire [Appendix A]. Due to a variety of reasons, the first meeting of this Board is not likely to take place until late January, 2012. The NHS landscape is also rapidly changing. Eight CCGs are seeking authorisation across Lancashire, with 2 being shared across the unitary authority boundaries.

2.2 There will be one CCG for Fylde and Wyre which will cover the Fylde and majority of Wyre District Council areas. It is unclear at present whether patients registered with 2 practices (Cleveleys and Crescent) which collectively cover approximately xxxxxxx patients, will sit within Blackpool CCG or Fylde and Wyre CCG. At the first phase of the authorisation process, they are within Fylde and Wyre CCG but it is known that they have expressed a wish to be part of Blackpool CCG. The Great Ecclestone practice, has expressed a wish to be part of the Greater Preston CCG and it is understood that this has been accepted as part of the first phase of the authorisation process.

2.3 It was recognised by the county council that the complexity of Lancashire, with 12 districts and 8 CCGs would risk the creation of a health and wellbeing board that was deemed to be distant, irrelevant to local communities and also potentially duplicating existing partnerships. As a result, a number of key principals were adopted by a variety of stakeholders, including doing the right thing at the right level. This means that the county council is open to suggestions for delegating responsibilities to more geographically local levels.

2.4 It is not possible for all District or CCGs to be individually represented at the Lancashire Health and Wellbeing Board once established, and there is some merit in trying to coordinate strategic thinking on Health and Wellbeing priorities at a level that is smaller than the county footprint, but larger than the Districts.

3. Proposed Partnership 3.1 It is therefore appropriate to create a health and wellbeing partnership for Fylde and Wyre commencing in 2012, both to assist the local statutory agencies in developing a cohesive and comprehensive strategy for its local population, as well as assist the emerging new partnerships develop shared priorities.

3.2 Following good practice, and emerging principles1, each health and wellbeing board needs:

• At least one councillor from the top tier local authority • the director of adult social services • the director of children’s services • the director of public health • a representative of the local HealthWatch • a representative from each CCG • others, as the board thinks appropriate

3.3 As the proposed Fylde and Wyre health and wellbeing partnership is not a statutory board, and as there is, as yet, no appointed director of public health for Lancashire nor HealthWatch, it is proposed that the Partnership has the following composition (as a balance between being inclusive and being functional):

• 3 Officers o the PCT Acting Director of public health (for North Lancashire PCT), or successor/deputy o the Lancashire Director of Adult Social Services or very senior deputy o The Lancashire Director of Children’s Services or very senior deputy • 2 elected councillors from the 2 districts (possibly one who is also at the County level) • 2 Chief Executives from the 2 districts • 3 “place-shaping” partners (at Senior Officer Level) o Police o Fire Service o Chamber of Commerce (for business sector) • 3 sector partners (at Senior Officer level) o Education sector (HE/FE Colleges) o Housing sector (Registered Social Landlords) o CVS (for Voluntary sector) • 2 representatives from the CCG (preferably but not exclusively from the Board of the CCG) • Other co-opted members, as appropriate or as needed.

3.4 This gives 15 members in a mix and balance which seems coherent. Core members will be the Officers, CCG & District members, and all members should have an interest in and knowledge about the local area. Where a sector is represented, it will be for that sector to decide how it will be represented, though the representation should be consistently the same person; a process of 12-monthly rotation within sector representatives would ensure that there is fresh challenge and ideas. Representatives should be able to speak authoritatively on behalf of their organisation, sector or interests.

3.5 The Partnership would be serviced, in the first instance, through the PCT’s Director of Public Health, but as the NHS transition proceeds, this may change. It is proposed that meetings take place bi-monthly, timing to be decided. The exact balance of the membership may change, and the partnership can review its own terms of reference in consultation with the statutory Lancashire Board. A key factor is to begin forming early and so be in a position to influence the direction of the statutory Board. The Fylde and Wyre health and wellbeing Partnership would be in a strong position to represent the interests and needs of its local population and therefore improve the collaborative efforts to improve the outcomes from local healthcare expenditure with the shared hospital trust, and also in collaboration with Blackpool CCG.

3.6 In the first instance, the Partnership should examine the terms of reference of the Lancashire Board, and modify or agree those which are considered pertinent to its own functioning, but the template adopted for Lancashire represents a good starting position (Appendix A). The emerging best practice operating principles1 are tabulated below:

1. To provide collective local leadership to improve health and well-being across the local authority area, enable shared decision-making and ownership of decisions in an open and transparent way

2. To achieve democratic legitimacy and accountability, and empower local people to take part in decision-making

3. To address health inequalities by ensuring quality, consistency and comprehensive health and local government services are commissioned in the area

4. To identify key priorities for health and local government commissioning and develop clear plans for how commissioners can make best use of their combined resources to improve local health and well-being outcomes in the short, medium and long term

3.7 This development would therefore enhance and continue the work on inequalities in health & unfair outcomes which has been developed over the years by the 2 Health and Wellbeing District Fora . Further progress requires a step change in development in order to meet the transitional challenge of fewer resources and increased need in a growing vulnerable cohort of residents. The emerging shared priorities should explicitly help address the underlying determinants of ill-health leading to and from inequalities, as well as assisting CCGs in meeting their Quality, Innovation, Productivity, and Prevention (QIPP) targets by improving the integration of care throughout the life cycle of residents, as well as through the entire pathway of care, from prevention through to palliative and end-of-life care. Both GPs and elected members are grounded within the communities they serve and would produce a new dimension of challenge and fresh ideas which would help shape the concept of “place” and community within Fylde and Wyre.

4. Recommendations

4.1 Stakeholders are asked to:

o Consider and comment on this proposal

o Identify who might be appropriate representatives, keeping in mind that terms of reference, meeting frequency, and membership can evolve and develop through time.

Mike Leaf, Acting DPH, NHS North Lancashire (Updated 11/1/12)

Appendix 'A' – Paper Agreed by Cabinet of LCC (15th September, 2011)

Lancashire Shadow Health and Wellbeing Board: Terms of Reference

1. Purpose The core purpose of the Health and Wellbeing Board (HWB) is to lead on the strategic co- ordination of commissioning across the NHS, social care and public health to secure better outcomes for the population, better quality of care for patients and care users and better value for the taxpayer.

The Lancashire County (HWB) will be the key partnership for improving and promoting the health and wellbeing of residents. Its focus will be on securing the best possible health outcomes for all people.

During this initial shadow phase of the HWB, we will be guided by the following principles:

2. Principles We recognise that it is important to establish how the Board will operate when bringing together representatives from organisations with different cultures and ways of working. To work effectively together, we agree to work and operate to the following: • There is a shared commitment to make the Health and Wellbeing Board effective and work for the people in Lancashire. • Board members will have respect for each other’s organisational culture, and relationships will be based on trust. • Members will be clear at the outset about what can and cannot be agreed. • Members will be understanding in relation to respective governance structures. • Members will endeavour to ensure that organisational boundaries are not a hindrance. • The Board will be flexible in relation to the need to work at differing levels, from the very local to sub regional as appropriate. • Due regard will be given to existing local structures that are effective and challenge those which do not provide value to the health system of Lancashire • All decisions will be based on best available evidence. • Data sharing will be the norm not the exception, • Reports to the Board will be succinct and outcomes from each Board meeting will be explicit. • There is recognition that the role and functioning of the Board is evolving and will be subject to regular review by the Board. • To work in partnership and collaborate with other non health related strategic partnerships in Lancashire

3. Role Recognising that a shared understanding of what the Board is, and what it is not, will lead to more efficient working, we agree that the role of the shadow Health and Wellbeing Board is:

• To co-ordinate the development of the Joint Strategic Needs Assessment (JSNA) to understand the health and wellbeing needs of the people of Lancashire.

• To determine the priorities for, and prepare, the Joint Health and Wellbeing Strategy for Lancashire, that spans the NHS, social care, public health, and wider health determinants. The Strategy will be based on the JSNA and will focus on priority outcomes which address the health inequalities in Lancashire. • To promote integration and partnership across areas (organisational/geographical), including through promoting joined up commissioning plans across the NHS, social care and public health • To ensure that, regardless of provider, commissioning decisions for health and wellbeing are in line with the joint Health and Wellbeing Strategy and take due notice of the JSNA, and any structures underneath the Lancashire Health & Wellbeing board are fit for purpose and align with commission plans. • To co-ordinate effort to make the public monies invested in health and wellbeing work effectively to address the health inequalities to deliver the priorities in the Health and Wellbeing Strategy. • Hold to account those responsible for the delivery of the outcomes set out in the Strategy. • Lobby and represent the views of health agencies in Lancashire to regional and national policy makers • The Board cannot discharge the functions of any of the Partners • Overview and Scrutiny has a distinctive and separate role from the HWB and the responsibilities must not be confused.

4. Membership

The membership is made up of the key partners involved in the promotion of public health together with the commissioners of health and wellbeing services in the county, including relevant Elected Members and representatives of wider stakeholders. The overall size should be kept at a level which is manageable and able to support efficient and effective decision making. The membership of the Board will consist of:

• Cabinet Member for Health & Wellbeing LCC (Chairperson ) • Cabinet Member for Children and Schools • Cabinet Member for Adult and Community Services • Executive Director for Adult and Community Services (Director of Adult Social Care) • Director of Public Health, LCC • Executive Director for Children and Young People (Director of Children’s Services) • 3 Clinical Commissioning Group Network Members • Chair of Lancashire PCT Cluster Board • Chief Executive of Lancashire PCT Cluster • NHS Commissioning Board, once established, may be an occasional member as the agenda requires. • 3 District Councillors (one from each of the sub areas of Lancashire) • 1 District Chief Executive

• Third Sector Representative • Chairperson of Healthwatch (when appointed) • Provider (Clinical Senate)

5. Meeting Arrangements

Meeting Frequency

• The Board will meet bi-monthly, or less frequently if it so decides. The Chair shall be responsible for agreeing meeting dates. • The Board will meet initially in private with the expressed commitment to move to public meetings, and publicly available papers, as soon as possible.

Chair

• The County Council's Cabinet Member for Health & Wellbeing will be the Chair of the Board

Papers • The Board takes responsibility for its own agenda-setting • The Chair shall be responsible for agreeing meeting agendas • Once it is agreed that meetings are to be held in public, the meeting papers will be published on the County Council's website and therefore will be publicly accessible.

Access • Every effort will be made by Board members to attend meetings. Substitutes for Board members will not be allowed in the development stages of the board subject to review • Otherwise, the Chair is responsible for agreeing attendance by any one who is not a member of the Board.

Secretariat Support

• The County Council shall provide support to the Chair in setting dates for the meeting, preparing the agenda, and minute taking.

6. Governance and Accountability • The Board will be accountable for its actions to its individual member organisations and to the people of Lancashire.

• Board members will be accountable through their own organisation’s decision making processes for the decisions they take. Members of the Board should have full delegated authority from their respective organisations to take decisions within the terms of reference of the Board. • Decisions within the terms of reference of the Board will be taken at meetings and will not be subject to ratification or a formal decision process by partner organisations (provided that at least 10 days notice of forthcoming decisions had been given). Where matters for consideration are not within the authority of the Board, any recommendations made will be subject to ratification by constituent bodies. • It is expected that decisions of the Board will be reached by consensus. • The terms of reference will be regularly reviewed, with the first review proposed in April 2012. This will incorporate consideration of issues such as membership, voting rights, quorum etc as appropriate. • The Board will produce an annual report and hold a Health & Wellbeing Assembly with invitation to wider stakeholders at least one a year.

7. Resolving Disagreement

• The starting point for the Board is one of assumed collaboration.

Regular reviews of the terms of reference during the shadow phase will address any areas for further development identified by the Board.

Health & Wellbeing Board 6- 8 Months Action Plan

First Shadow board meeting Early October 2011 - Clarify and agree, purpose and roles - Development plan for shadow board Understanding & influencing the health October 2011 / November landscape in Lancashire 2011

Understanding the needs of the population via the JSNA, with a particular focus on those triggers which will have a biggest impact on October / December 2011 Health Inequalities in Lancashire

Identifying priorities for Health & Wellbeing November 2011 / January Strategy 2012

Public engagement and consultation on priorities January 2012 / February 2012 and strategy

Finalise and launch Strategy March 2012 / April 2012

41 REPORT REPORT OF MEETING DATE ITEM NO

DIRECTOR CABINET 23 MAY 2012 8 COMMUNITY SERVICES

LOWTHER GARDENS TRUST

Public Item This item is for consideration in the public part of the meeting.

Summary

The report presents the updated position with regard to the transfer of management responsibility for Lowther Pavilion to Lowther Gardens Trust. It requests that Cabinet consider releasing the revenue budget equivalent to the grant requested by the Trust to support activity at the Pavilion over the next five years.

Cabinet Portfolio

The item falls within the following portfolio:

Leisure & Culture - Councillor Susan Fazackerley

Continued....

42 Recommendations

1. That Cabinet approves the release of the following revenue budget provision to the Lowther Gardens Trust to support the management of the Pavilion, in line with the business plan / financial forecast previously provided, whilst recognising the financial implications identified in the report:

2012/13 - £71,417; 2013/14 - £59,617; 2014/15 - £50,667; 2015/16 - £38,667;

2016/17 - £31,667

2. That agreement of the final terms of the Service Level Agreement is delegated to the Leader in consultation with the Director of Community Services and the Council’s s151 Officer, to mitigate any conflict of interest given that the Portfolio Holder is also a Trustee.

Reasons for Recommendation

1. To support the Lowther Gardens Trust in managing Lowther Pavilion by the provision of a revenue grant.

Alternative options considered and rejected

1. Not to progress the transfer of management of the Pavilion - rejected because the trustees have the legal responsibility to manage trust property, as well as the Council’s stated intentions and imperative of the Trust to make progress. The Cabinet may resolve not to provide revenue or capital support although this is likely to make the future of the Pavilion uncertain.

Background

1. Lowther Gardens was registered as a charitable trust in 2006, with the Council as sole trustee. A number of independent trustees were appointed in the summer of 2010. There are presently five independent trustees. The Council remains as a trustee, and is represented at trust meetings by the Portfolio Holder for Leisure and Culture.

2. A report was presented to Cabinet on 28 June 2011 updating Members on progress in transferring the management of the Pavilion to the Trust. The meeting resolved: • To approve a virement of £30,000 subsidy (which is included in the 2011/12 service change cost budget) and award it to the trustees towards the management and day-to-day operational costs of Lowther Pavilion. • To continue to negotiate with the Trustees regarding the remaining gap of subsidy requested. • To request that the Trustees submit a long term (3 – 5 years) business plan, as timetabled in Appendix B of the report. • To inform the Trustees that the £30K subsidy is conditional upon: o The new Theatre Manager being in post by 1 September 2011

43 o The appointment of a new trustee, by 1 September 2011, with an accountancy or similar professional background demonstrating financial skills, knowledge and experience o Negotiation of an initial Service Level Agreement to include a specified minimum number of days/weeks when local community/amateur groups can hire the Pavilion for practice/performance.

3. The Theatre Manager, Isabelle Leclercq, took up post on the 5 September 2011. Subsequently David Winston, FCCA (Fellow of the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants) has been appointed as a trustee with financial expertise.

4. A report was presented to Cabinet on 16 November 2011 detailing the Lowther Gardens Trust business plan, requesting a financial subsidy to support the transfer of management of the Pavilion away from the Council to the Trust. The report also included a draft Service Level Agreement (SLA) to ensure accountability for any subsidy agreed. Members resolved:

• to refer the matter to the Council’s Overview and Scrutiny Committee for further consideration and comment in December and that the outcome of its deliberations be presented to Cabinet in January.

5. Policy Development Scrutiny Committee subsequently met on 8 December 2011, appointing a working group to progress the Cabinet decision. The working group reported back to the full committee on the 19 April 2012. The minutes of that meeting are provided elsewhere on this agenda, with the committee resolving:

• to recommend that the proposed funding for the Lowther Pavilion element of the Trust’s business should be released as long as there are checks and balances in place, outlined below. • that the Trust should provide the Working Group with a copy of their policy relating to the management of conflicts of interest, and a copy of the register of interests • at the quarterly meeting required by the SLA, alongside the management accounts detailing actual expenditure and income against budget, any updates to the register of interest should be declared • that the Trust should report annually to the Scrutiny Committee regarding their performance measured against the SLA.

6. The draft SLA attached at Appendix A has been updated in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee.

7. It is anticipated that four Pavilion staff will transfer to the employment of the Trust on 1 June 2012, under the provisions of The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006, which places specific responsibilities on both the Council and the Trust.

8. As part of the transfer of management responsibility the Trust requested a full building condition survey comprising structural, mechanical and electrical elements be completed. Surveys have now been completed, and discussions continue with the Trust in terms of the level of any capital support that might be requested as a consequence. Any such capital funding request would form part of a future report to Council for consideration as an unfunded budget increase.

44 9. The levels of revenue subsidy requested are detailed in the Trust business plan / financial forecast summarised below:

Lowther Trust Business Plan - Summary

Yr 1 Yr 2 Yr 3 Yr 4 Yr 5 2012.13 2013.14 2014.15 2015.16 2016.17 Total Total Total Total Total

£ £ £ £ £ Income 657,416 675,916 689,416 707,916 719,916.0 0

Direct Costs Box office commission payments 339,096 344,096 349,096 354,096 359,096 Lowther self promoted show costs 70,320 70,320 70,320 70,320 70,320 Bar stock 21,740 24,240 24,240 26,740 26,740 431,156 438,656 443,656 451,156 456,156

GROSS PROFIT 226,260 237,260 245,760 256,760 263,760

Overheads 264,706 263,456 263,456 262,456 262,456 Depreciation 4,278 4,278 4,278 4,278 4,278 Overdraft Interest 5,030 5,030 5,030 5,030 5,030 274,014 272,764 272,764 271,764 271,764

NET LOSS -47,754 -35,504 -27,004 -15,004 -8,004

Irrecoverable Input tax on exempt Supplies 23,663 23,663 23,663 23,663 23,663

TOTAL DEFICIT -71,417 -59,167 -50,667 -38,667 -31,667

10. The level of subsidy requested falls significantly over the five years from £71,417 to £31,667.

11. There are three issues that make a significant difference to the financial implications for the Trust when compared to those of the Council:

a) the Trust operates under a less favourable VAT framework, resulting in approximately £24k irrecoverable tax

b) Depreciation costs are treated differently, resulting in approximately £4k less favourable position

c) the Trust will incur approximately £5k overdraft interest

12. It should also be noted that the Trust has listed caveats in presenting the plan for approval:

• Any redundancy payments made to staff previously employed by FBC (where due to restructuring) will be met by FBC.

• The Trust can bid for capital funding from FBC (among other funding bodies) for any major redevelopment.

13. This report solely addresses the future management of Lowther Pavilion. Further discussions are needed with the Trustees to determine the future arrangements for the management of the Gardens and associated leisure provision.

Financial Implications

14. The Council’s approved revenue budget currently contains the provision for Lowther Pavilion detailed above, i.e.

Year Current Budget Provision 2012.13 £71,417 2013.14 £59,167 2014.15 £50,667 2015.16 £38,667 2016.17 £31,667

15. The Council has been requested to support an application from the Trust to join the Lancashire Pensions service via a ‘community admission’, ring-fenced to those staff who have been in the pension scheme whilst employed at Lowther Pavilion by the Council. Lancashire Pensions Service has advised that there will be a cost estimated at £1,200 to the Council for provision of the actuarial information upon which to base an assessment of liability. This cost will be met as a virement from existing budgetary provision.

16. There are 4 employees transferring to the employment of the Trust; of these three are members of the pension scheme. Only one member is currently over the minimum retirement age for redundancy (55 years of age) which would result in a pension strain liability. The estimated value of this liability at the date of transfer of employment is approximately £6,000. In addition the total redundancy liability for all four employees is estimated at approximately £12,000 at the date of transfer. This liability would only materialise in the unlikely event that all staff are made redundant. The Council currently has no budgetary provision earmarked for this eventuality.

Service Level Agreement

17. For information the draft SLA is attached at Appendix A. The terms of this SLA have been discussed with the Lowther Gardens Trust, but the finer details not yet finalised. It is recommended that agreement of the final terms of the SLA is delegated to the Leader, in consultation with key officers, to mitigate any conflict of interest given that the Portfolio Holder is also a Trustee.

Risk Assessment

18. A copy of the risk assessment is attached at Appendix B

Report Author Tel Date Doc ID

23.5.12 Lowther Gardens Clare Platt 01253 658602 23.05.12 Trust

List of Background Papers

Name of document Date Where available for inspection

Cabinet Agenda and 15 December 2010 www.fylde.gov.uk Minutes

Cabinet Agenda and 28 June 2011 www.fylde.gov.uk Minutes

Cabinet Agenda and 16 November 2011 www.fylde.gov.uk Minutes

Policy Development Scrutiny Committee 8 December 2011 www.fylde.gov.uk Agenda and Minutes

Policy Development Scrutiny Committee 19 April 2012 www.fylde.gov.uk Agenda and Minutes

IMPLICATIONS

Finance The financial implications are included within the main body of the report

Legal The legal implications are included within the main body of the report

Community Safety None arising from this report

Human Rights and None arising from this report Equalities

Sustainability Members need to satisfy themselves that both the Trust and the Council can work together to ensure a sustainable future for Lowther Gardens

Health & Safety and Risk Risk assessment template at Appendix B Management 

Appendix A

Service Level Agreement for Grant-Funded Services

Date:

Parties (1) Fylde Borough Council (“the Council”) (2) Trustees of Lowther Gardens Trust (“the Provider”)

Interpretation In this agreement the following words have the following meanings:

Default Notice A notice fulfilling the requirements of clause 29 and a Default Notice is ”unresolved” at any time that the concerns raised in it have not been addressed to the reasonable satisfaction of the Council Grant The Initial Grant and any Subsequent Grant Grant Period The Initial Grant Period and any Subsequent Grant Period Initial Grant £71,417 Initial Grant Period 1 April 2012 to 31 March 2013

Performance Measures The performance measures set out in the Second Schedule

Scheme The scheme governing the charity known as Lowther Gardens, Lytham dated 3 June 2009, as amended 17 January 2011 (or any subsequent amendment) Services The services provided at Lowther Pavilion set out in the First Schedule Subsequent Grant The maximum grant paid by the Council to the Provider in respect of the Subsequent Grant Periods: 2013/14 - £59,167 2014/15 - £50,667 2015/16 - £38,667 2016/17 - £31,667 Subsequent Grant Periods 1 April 2013 to 31 March 2014; 1 April 2014 to 31 March 2015; 1 April 2015 to 31 March 2016; 1 April 2016 to 31 March 2017. TUPE The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006

Lowther SLA Rev8 1

Status of agreement 1. The Council has agreed to pay a grant to the Provider to enable it to provide the Services at Lowther Pavilion. The Council is satisfied that paying a grant for these purposes is likely to achieve the promotion or improvement of the economic, social or environmental well being of the Council’s area. The Services provided by the Provider contribute towards delivery of the Council’s strategic themes.

2. This Agreement sets out what the Provider is to do, how its performance will be measured and what happens if the Services are not provided as required by this Agreement.

3. This Agreement is not intended to constitute a contract between the Council and the Provider and the Council shall not be legally bound to pay the Grant.

The Grant and the Grant Period 4. The Council will (subject as hereinafter provided) pay the Initial Grant to the Provider to enable the Provider to deliver the Services during the Initial Grant Period.

5. The Initial Grant will be paid in the following instalments:

Date Amount

1 June 2012 £35,709

1 October 2012 £17,854

1 January 2013 £17,854

6. The Council will pay the Subsequent Grant to the Provider to enable the Provider to deliver the Services during the Subsequent Grant Periods. It will be paid in quarterly instalments on 1 April, 1 July, 1 October and 1 January each year.

7. In deciding the amount of Subsequent Grant, the Council shall have regard to the financial position of the Provider, as evidenced by the accounting information required to be provided, and to the principle of limiting the amount of Subsequent Grant required by the Provider to fulfil its obligations under this agreement.

8. In each Subsequent Grant Period, and at least three months prior to 1 April of the relevant period, the parties to this Agreement shall make best endeavours to negotiate a level of Service provision that reflects the Subsequent Grant which the Council (acting reasonably) will pay. In the unlikely event the parties to this Agreement are unable to reach mutually

Lowther SLA Rev8 2

acceptable terms on the provision of the Services this Agreement shall terminate on 31 March in that current Grant Period.

9. Notwithstanding clauses 5 and 6 of this Agreement, the Initial Grant and any payments of Subsequent Grant approved by the Council will be released only on receipt of a proper invoice from the Provider. The Council will make payment to the Provider within 30 days of receipt of the invoice, unless (in the opinion of the Council) there is adequate reason to dispute the payment. Any dispute will be drawn to the attention of the Provider within 10 days of receipt of the invoice and the Provider will then have 10 days from receipt of such notice to reasonably satisfy the Council that payment should be made, following which the Council shall be liable to make the payment.

10. The Provider must comply with the Performance Measures and any specific guidance issued by the Council in deciding how it will spend the Grant.

11. In addition to a Grant, the Council may (at it its discretion) pay a termination payment of up to the equivalent of one instalment of that Grant for any Grant Period to the Provider on the last day of the Grant Period, if and to the extent that:

• The Council does not propose to pay a Grant in respect of the year immediately following the end of the Grant Period;

• The Provider does not intend to provide the Services or services similar to the Services during that year; and

• The Provider demonstrates to the Council’s satisfaction that the termination payment is needed to facilitate a reasonably justifiable winding-down of its service

The Services 12. The Provider will deliver the Services at the times and in the manner set out in this Agreement and in accordance with the Performance Measures.

13. The Provider will supply sufficient information as the Council may demand from time to time about its provision of the Services to enable the Council to assess the Provider’s compliance with the Performance Measures.

Lead officers 14. Each party has nominated an individual to be the primary point of contact and an address for service on all matters concerning the Grant, this agreement or the Services. The nominated persons are:

Council: Clare Platt, Director Community Services, Town Hall, Lytham St Annes, Lancashire FY8 1LW

Lowther SLA Rev8 3

Provider: Chairman, Lowther Gardens Trust, Lowther Pavilion, West Beach, Lytham St Annes, Lancashire FY8 5QQ

Ancillary requirements 15. The Provider will be wholly responsible for the day-to-day financial and accounting functions in relation to the delivery of the Services from within its own resources. It must ensure that there are proper financial management arrangements in place in accordance with the UK Generally Accepted Accounting Practice (GAAP). These will include the following:

• A financial audit trail from allocation of spend to activity or service delivery • Records of spending decisions • Evidence of spend and payments made • Evidence of activity undertaken • Records of income generated • Records of all other funding secured • Professionally audited annual accounts • Quarterly management accounts • Evidence of contracting and procurement procedures carried out for significant items of expenditure, to ascertain value for money 16. The Provider will keep accurate financial records in accordance with GAAP and will make them available to the Council on request, including access to all relevant receipts and invoices. The records must in particular provide a clear audit trail of how any Grant has been used.

17. The Provider will supply to the Council a copy of its pre-audited accounts 3 months after the end of the Initial Grant Period and each Subsequent Grant Period and a copy of the professionally audited accounts within 6 months of the end of those periods.

18. The Provider will supply a copy of its annual budget to the Council in advance of the commencement of each Subsequent Grant Period, which must reflect the Initial Grant or any Subsequent Grant payable by the Council for the provision of the Services.

19. The Provider will supply quarterly management accounts to the Council showing details of expenditure and income in the period and accumulated figures against budget for the year to date. Where the financial statements are inconsistent with what might be expected the Provider will clarify and give reasons for the situation, explaining how the agreed budget will be achieved.

20. All spending decisions of the Provider must be made or ratified in accordance with the Scheme. Such decisions must be within the known resources available to the Provider at the time of making the decision.

21. Any costs, allowances or expenses incurred by the Provider as a result of providing financial information, documents or records to the Council or for

Lowther SLA Rev8 4

attendance at any meetings with Council representatives will be the responsibility of the Provider.

22. The Provider will supply the Council with a schedule of dates when any external audit or accreditation inspection of the Services will be undertaken and provide the council with a copy of any resulting report.

23. The Provider will, both in providing the Services and generally, comply with all relevant statutory requirements, including those related to health and safety and equalities. The Provider acknowledges that such compliance is the sole responsibility of the Provider and agrees to indemnify the Council against all costs, claims, demands, proceedings and liabilities whatsoever arising out of the performance of the Services. The Council does not, either by the payment of any Grant, by entering into this agreement or otherwise take (or to have accepted or assumed) any responsibility for any non-compliance by the Provider.

24. The Provider will ensure that there are appropriate internal procedures in place to manage risks and ensure good governance practice. The Provider will provide to the Council such evidence as the Council reasonably requires that risk management measures are being undertaken to mitigate threats to the future operation of the Services and that good governance practice is operational. Performance on risk management and governance measures will form a part of the quarterly monitoring meetings, including details of any changes to the register of interests maintained by the Trust.

25. The Provider provides the Services in its own right and not as agent or partner of the Council. The Council will not indemnify the Provider for negligence or any other breach of duty other than for death or personal injury caused by the negligence of the Council or its servants or agents.

26. The Provider will maintain adequate insurance to cover any liabilities arising from the performance of the Services. It will allow the Council to inspect its policies on request and submit copies of such policies to the Council’s Lead Officer on an annual basis.

27. Throughout the Grant Period, the Provider will prominently acknowledge the funding the Council provides on official stationery, all promotional material and publications of the Provider, incorporating the logo of the Council where space allows. All publicity and PR undertaken by the Provider must also clearly acknowledge and make reference to the Council as a funder.

28. Any approaches to the press with respect to any matter relating to this Agreement should be jointly agreed through consultation between the Provider and the Council.

Default in performance 29. In the event that:

Lowther SLA Rev8 5

• The Provider ceases to provide the Services, the Council shall be at liberty to serve a Default Notice on the Provider terminating this Agreement forthwith; or

• In the opinion of the Council, having regard to the Performance Measures, and having previously provided written adequate notification of its concerns to the Provider, the Council considers that the performance of the Services falls so far below the standard the Council reasonably requires pursuant to this Agreement, they ought to cease to be provided by the Provider. Then, and in that case, the Council shall be at liberty to serve a Default Notice on the Provider giving the Provider at least 30 days to resolve the matters referred to in the Default Notice by the date referred to in the Default Notice. If the matters referred to in the Default Notice are not resolved to the reasonable satisfaction of the Council, this Agreement shall terminate on the date referred to in the notice and the Council shall not be obliged to make further Grant payments. If the Council so determines, it may require repayment of any Grant paid in advance for the Grant Period from the date referred to in the Default Notice.

30. Following service of the Default Notice, and upon being requested to do so by the Council, the Provider will repay to the Council such proportionate part of the Grant as the Council, acting in accordance with clause 31, considers appropriate within 28 days of the Council serving a written demand to do so at the Provider’s address for service.

31. For the purposes of clause 28 the Council will only be deemed to have provided adequate notification of its concerns if the notification was:

• given at least one calendar month before service of the Default Notice and the Council’s written demand for repayment;

• made in writing to the Provider’s representative named in clause 14; and

• contained (in the opinion of the Council) sufficient detail about the Council’s concerns to have given a reasonable organisation in the place of the Provider an adequate opportunity to address them to the reasonable satisfaction of the Council

32. In deciding what proportionate part of the Grant it considers appropriate to require the Provider to repay under clause 29, the Council will have regard to the following principles:

• If the Provider informs the Council, that it will cease to operate (but not if the Provider has already ceased to provide the Services), the need for the Provider to be able to bring about an orderly closure of the Services including but not limited to the termination of employment contracts and any statutory redundancy payments

Lowther SLA Rev8 6

• The Council will only require the Provider to repay sums in respect of Grant that was either:

o Paid in respect of the current financial year of a Grant Period, or

o Paid in respect of the period following the service of an unresolved Default Notice, or

o In excess of the requirements of the Provider to fund the provision of the Services in a given financial year as set out in the Provider’s business plan, and have not been subsequently expended in the provision of the services

33. The Provider acknowledges that the Grant is not consideration for any taxable supply for VAT purposes to the Council by the Provider.

34. The Provider accepts that the Council may share information about the Grant with any parties of the Council’s choice as well as those making requests for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

35. The Provider may not assign any of their rights under this Agreement to any successor or other body.

36. The Provider may not transfer any part of the Grant or this Agreement to another organisation or individual.

37. It is agreed between the parties that the purpose of Grant is to fund any potential operating deficit in the Provider’s resources in respect of the reasonable performance of the Services by the Provider during the Grant Period. If during the course of this Agreement it becomes reasonably apparent to the Council that the Grant is no longer required and the Provider is no longer operating at a loss, the Council (at its entire discretion) shall be at liberty (in consultation with the Provider) to withhold payment (in whole or part) of the Subsequent Grant for such time or periods as it shall deem appropriate. This clause shall not be invoked if the provider is successful in securing revenue and/or capital grants which require specific performance measures beyond those specified in this agreement.

Dispute Resolution 38. To be advised.

Transfer of Staff

39. The Council agrees that:

(i) in so far as this agreement effects the transfer of an undertaking operated by the Council, and that the TUPE applies to such a transfer, it has and will comply with it’s obligations under the TUPE

Lowther SLA Rev8 7

(ii) it will support an application by the Lowther Gardens Trust to join the Lancashire County Pension Fund as an admissible body, and will, if requested by the Trust, act as guarantor for the Trust’s admission to the scheme in relation only to such persons who transfer to the employment of the Lowther Gardens Trust as a result of TUPE and who were, before such transfer, members of that fund.

(iii) it shall retain any pension liabilities it may have for the transferred employees and those pensioners previously employed at Lowther Gardens up to the transfer date, under the Lancashire Local Government Pensions Scheme.

(iv) In the event of any claim being made against the Council, it shall immediately notify the Provider and no agreement or settlement shall be reached or entered into by the Council, without the prior consent of the Provider, (which shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed).

40. The Provider agrees that:

(ii) it accepts that the following four persons presently employed by the Council for the purposes of the undertaking to be transferred will, by virtue of TUPE, be transferred to the employment of Lowther Gardens Trust on the 1 June 2012:

The First Schedule

The Services

(i) The maintenance and development of Lowther Pavilion as a cultural community facility, for the benefit of residents of and visitors to the Borough.

(ii) The provision of a balanced and diverse programme of performing arts and entertainment, including dance, drama, music, musical theatre, variety and comedy; encouraging innovation through the use of new technology and the support of new writing and performing talent.

Lowther SLA Rev8 8

(iii) The development of new audiences and encouragement of existing audiences to visit more frequently, building participation in the arts locally; accessible to all sectors of the community through programming, marketing and community engagement work.

(iv) The promotion of the performing arts in Fylde, supporting and developing local amateur groups, volunteers and the wider community. The pavilion shall be available for hire by local community/amateur groups for a minimum of 120 sessions per year. (v) The free use by the Council of Lowther Pavilion and its facilities for up to 10 Council meetings per year and the annual Mayor making ceremony on dates to be provided to the Provider in advance by the Council.

(vi) The Provider shall make best endeavours to make available the Pavilion for use in the event of a civil emergency as a rest centre or similar facility.

The Second Schedule

The Performance Measures

Quarterly meetings will be held between representatives of the Provider and the Council, where the information required by this agreement will be reviewed.

If requested to do so, the Provider will make an annual presentation to the Council’s Community Focus Scrutiny Committee (or other such appropriate elected member group) at the conclusion (or as near to as possible) of each year of the operation of the Service Level Agreement summarising its performance and service during the year, including financial performance – annual outturn against the budget.

Quantitative

• The Services to be provided within the operating budget, provided in accordance with clause 18.

• A breakdown of the number of complaints received from service users and how they have been resolved.

• Number of sessions utilised by local amateur groups, volunteers and the wider community.

Lowther SLA Rev8 9

• Number and percentage of self-promoted shows which breakeven and/or make a profit

Qualitative

• Satisfaction surveys regarding the provision and quality of the Services should be carried out during each Grant Period. Reporting on satisfaction levels should be a part of the reporting arrangements to the Council referred to above.

• Evidence of maximising opportunities to generate extra funding over the period of the Agreement in order to deliver the widest possible range of services for the benefit of Fylde residents and its visitors.

• Maximising community use of facilities and the production of evidence to show the Pavilion is being made available for local community/amateur groups to satisfy the Provider’s obligations in paragraph (iv) of the First Schedule.

Signatures

------

…………………………………………..

Lowther SLA Rev8 10

57 Appendix B

 Committee Risk Assessment Template  

Directorate: Community Services Date of Assessment: May 2012 Section: Cultural Services Assessment Team: Clare Platt, Darren Bell Assessment Activity / Area / Type: Transfer of Managerial & Operational Responsibilities for Lowther Pavilion to Lowther Gardens Trust Do the hazards create a business continuity risk? Yes RISK DESCRIPTION RISK SCORE RISK MITIGATION RESIDUAL RISK OWNER / RISK (Likelihood x RISK SCORE REGISTER Impact) (Likelihood x Impact)

The Trust cannot meet its 4 x 4 = 16 The Council can exert some influence through 3 x 4 = 12 The risk lies with the financial commitments the terms of the SLA & as a trustee. The Trust Trust, but the Council, (revenue and/or capital) may approach the Council for further revenue as a trustee, will still and/or capital support which would require have a responsibility consideration by Council as an unfunded budget increase.

Non-compliance with 3 x 3 = 9 The Trust and the Council are aware of their 2 x 3 = 6 Darren Bell / Trustees TUPE requirements responsibilities under the legislation. Clause in SLA to highlight. HR support to Council. Legal advice available to Trust.

Any redundancy payments 4 x 2 = 8 The Council can exert some influence through 3 x 2 = 6 Darren Bell / Trustees made to staff previously the terms of the SLA & as a trustee. (Currently employed by FBC (where the estimated maximum liability is £12,000.) due to restructuring) will be met by FBC.

The Council acts as 3 x 3 = 9 Liability is limited to the three members of staff 3 x 2 = 6 Darren Bell guarantor for the who are currently members of the scheme and admission of Lowther whose employment transfers to the Trust. 1 58 Gardens Trust to (Currently the estimated liability is £6,000) Lancashire Pensions Scheme, and is exposed to financial risk as a consequence.

Risk Likelihood Risk Impact Multiply the likelihood by the impact and if the score is above 12 then 6 = Very High 1= Negligible mitigating action should be undertaken to reduce the risk. This action should 5 = High 2 = Marginal be recorder and monitored in either a directorate or corporate risk register. 4 = Significant 3 = Critical 3 = Low 4 = Catastrophic 2 = Very Low 1 = Almost impossible

2 59 REPORT

REPORT OF MEETING DATE ITEM NO

DEVELOPMENT 23RD MAY CABINET 9 SERVICES 2012

CAR PARK IMPROVEMENTS CAPITAL SCHEME 2012/13

Summary

This report presents the details of proposed resurfacing works to Dicconson Terrace car park on Lytham Green funded from the annual capital budget for car park improvements.

Recommendations Cabinet is recommended to approve the proposed works to Dicconson Terrace car park on Lytham Green as detailed in the report for immediate commencement, with the works being funded from the approved 2012/13 capital programme scheme of £30,000 for Car Park Improvements.

Alternative options considered and rejected

Not to proceed with the improvement scheme, resulting in a poor experience for users of the car park and potentially accident claims resulting in loss of income and payments for claims.

Cabinet Portfolio The item falls within the following Cabinet portfolio:

Customer and Operational Services Councillor Albert Pounder

Report 1. Background

1.1 The budget approved by Council for 2012/13 includes a capital budget of £30,000 for car park improvements. A recent survey of the condition of all the borough’s car parks has identified the urgent need to resurface Dicconson Terrace car park in Lytham.

Continued....

60 2. The resurfacing scheme

2.1 The proposal is to resurface the entire car park (1096m2). This involves planing off the existing surface to an average of 95mm, laying a 60mm binder course followed by a 35mm close graded course, then relining the car park.

2.2 There is some urgency for the work to take place as the existing surface is deteriorating due to age and wear.

2.3 A scheme for the work has been designed and tendered through ‘The Chest’ which is the Council’s agreed procurement portal.

3. A Cost Breakdown of the Scheme

3.1 A number of quotes for the work on the car park have been received, as set out in paragraph 6.2 below, with the cheapest being in the amount of £21,377.

3.2 Supervision of the contract will be undertaken by the Technical Services team.

4. The Method and Cost of Financing the Scheme

4.1 The cost of the proposed works will be met from within the approved 2012/13 capital budget of £30,000 for car park improvements.

5. The Future Revenue Budget Impact

5.1 The car park is an asset currently managed and maintained by the Council and so there would not be any additional revenue costs arising as a result of the capital scheme, with all ongoing maintenance costs being met from existing revenue budgets.

6. Relevant Value for Money Issues

6.1 The works have been specified by using accepted car park surfacing techniques within the budget available and has been procured competitively.

6.2 Quotations for the work on the car park were received in the order of: • £21,377 • £22,600 • £22,878 • £25,625

7. Risk Assessment

7.1 The work needs to be undertaken urgently so as to minimise the risk of damage and injury. In addition, given the increased usage of the car park and adjacent Green during the summer for activities, it is recommended that the work be carried out without delay.

7.2 It is not anticipated that there would be any issues with cost overrun as the works are not technically complex and simple to survey and specify.

61 8. Viable Alternative

8.1 In specifying this scheme Officers have surveyed the site and considered different surfacing techniques and considers the traditional asphalt binder/wearing course treatment to be the preferred solution within the budget available.

9. Objectives, Outputs and Outcomes

9.1 The objectives, outputs and outcomes of the project are to have a smooth car park surface which is free draining and free from bumps and undulations which could cause damage or injury.

9.2 Relevant drawings and documents have been supplied to the contractor which forms part of the contract to be awarded.

Report Author Tel Date Doc ID

th Andrew Dickson (01253) 658675 30 April 2012

List of Background Papers

Name of document Date Where available for inspection

Attached documents

IMPLICATIONS

Finance Detailed in the body of the report

Legal There are no implications

Community Safety There are no implications

Human Rights and There are no implications Equalities

Sustainability and There are no implications Environmental Impact

Health & Safety and Risk Identified risks are dealt with in the report Management

62 REPORT

REPORT OF MEETING DATE ITEM NO

DEVELOPMENT 23RD MAY CABINET 10 SERVICES 2012

PROMENADE FOOTWAYS CAPITAL SCHEME 2012/13

Summary

This report presents the details of proposed resurfacing works to Lytham Promenade and Charlie’s Mast footpath on Lytham Green funded from the annual capital budget for promenade footway improvements.

Recommendations Cabinet is recommended to approve the proposed works to Lytham Promenade and Charlie’s Mast footpath on Lytham Green as detailed in the report for immediate commencement, with the works being funded from the approved 2012/13 capital programme scheme of £40,000 for Promenade Footways.

Alternative options considered and rejected

Not to proceed with the improvement scheme, would result in a poor finish for users of the footpaths with potential accidents and claims ensuing.

Cabinet Portfolio The item falls within the following Cabinet portfolio:

Planning and Development Councillor Dr Trevor Fiddler

Report 1. Background

1.1 The budget approved by Council for 2012/13 includes a capital budget of £40,000 for promenade footway improvements. A recent survey of the condition of the borough’s

Continued....

63 promenade footways has identified the urgent need to resurface 18 sections of Lytham Promenade and two sections of Charlie’s Mast footpath in Lytham.

2. The resurfacing scheme

2.1 The proposal is to resurface1,643 m2 of footway on Lytham Promenade and 190 m2 of footway at Charlie’s Mast. This involves planing off the existing surface to an average of 65mm, laying a 45mm binder course followed by a 20mm close graded wearing course, and installing four Broxap duracast bollards at the end of the Charlie’s Mast footway.

2.2 There is some urgency for the work to take place as the existing surface is deteriorating due to age and wear.

2.3 A scheme for the work will be designed and tendered through ‘The Chest’ which is the Council’s agreed procurement portal.

3. A Cost Breakdown of the Scheme

3.1 A number of quotes for the work at Charlie’s Mast have been received, as set out in paragraph 6.1 below, with the cheapest being in the amount of £5,442. Quotes are currently being sought for the works to Lytham Promenade which are estimated to cost in the region of £32,860.

3.2 Supervision of the contract will be undertaken by the Technical Services team.

4. The Method and Cost of Financing the Scheme

4.1 The 2012/13 approved capital programme budget of £40,000 for promenade footway improvements will be used to fund the works.

5. The Future Revenue Budget Impact

5.1 The footway is an asset currently managed and maintained by the Council and so there would not be any additional revenue costs arising as a result of the capital scheme, with all ongoing maintenance costs being met from existing revenue budgets.

6. Relevant Value for Money Issues

6.1 The works have been specified by using accepted footpath surfacing techniques within the budget available and will be procured competitively. Quotations for the work at Charlie’s Mast were received in the order of: • £5,442 • £5,525 • £5,693 • £6,000

7. Risk Assessment

7.1 The work needs to be undertaken urgently so as to minimise the risk of damage and injury. In addition, given the increased usage of the footways and adjacent Green during the summer for activities, it is recommended that the work be carried out without delay.

64 7.2 It is not anticipated that there would be any issues with cost overrun as the works are not technically complex and simple to survey and specify.

8. Viable Alternative

9. Objectives, Outputs and Outcomes

9.1 The objectives, outputs and outcomes of the project are to have a smooth footway surface which is free draining and free from bumps and undulations which could cause damage or injury to pedestrians.

9.2 Relevant drawings and documents have been supplied to the contractor which forms part of the contract to be awarded.

Report Author Tel Date Doc ID

th Andrew Dickson (01253) 658675 30 April 2012

List of Background Papers

Name of document Date Where available for inspection

Attached documents

IMPLICATIONS

Finance Detailed in the body of the report

Legal There are no implications

Community Safety There are no implications

Human Rights and There are no implications Equalities

Sustainability and There are no implications Environmental Impact

Health & Safety and Risk Identified risks are dealt with in the report Management

65 REPORT

REPORT OF MEETING DATE ITEM NO

DEVELOPMENT CABINET 23 MAY 2012 11 SERVICES

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING – FYLDE COAST STRATEGIC PLANNING

Public Item This item is for consideration in the public part of the meeting.

Summary

This report presents a draft ‘Duty to Cooperate’ Memorandum of Understanding to assist strategic planning discussions between the respective Fylde Coast authorities.

Recommendations That Cabinet supports the ‘Duty to Cooperate’ Memorandum of Understanding and recommends its adoption by Council.

Reasons for Recommendation

The recommendation assists the Council to deliver a new Local Plan.

Alternative options considered and rejected

No alternatives considered

Cabinet Portfolio The item falls within the following Cabinet portfolio:

Portfolio: Planning & Development Councillor: Cllr Dr Trevor Fiddler

Continued....

66 Report 1) Background a) A new Local Plan is being prepared (formally Core Strategy) which will eventually replace the existing adopted Fylde Borough Local Plan. A member steering group is in place to consider reports and advise the Portfolio Holder and Cabinet in the achievement of this important corporate objective. b) Good progress is now being made with the Plan and the issues and options consultation runs from the 7th June to the 19th July. This consultation represents an important stage in the preparation of the new Fylde Local Plan. The options have been developed by gathering information from existing evidence and the results of public consultation. This document presents a vision of Fylde in 2030 and options for achieving that vision. c) The consultation along with the results of the interim Sustainability Appraisal will inform the Council’s choice of preferred options and these will be included in a further consultation document in due course, called the Preferred Option. This will be the next stage in the preparation of the Local Plan, where the community will have a further chance to let the Council know its views.

2) Duty to Cooperate a) Regular meetings between officers of Fylde Council and neighbouring authorities have taken place during the preparation of the evidence base for the respective development plan documents and to discuss important issues that cross administrative boundaries. Members from the adjoining authorities have also met on occasions to discuss matters that cross council boundaries. b) The Government has introduced through the Localism Bill and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) a duty to cooperate on strategic planning issues. c) The duty to cooperate applies to all local planning authorities and a number of other public bodies and requires working with neighbouring authorities and other bodies including Local Enterprise Partnerships on strategic priorities. It includes collaborating on evidence critical to understanding the needs of the area and the wider economic and housing market areas. d) Strategic cross-boundary growth needs should be considered in an authority’s local plan and authorities will need to demonstrate that they have successfully cooperated with other bodies on cross-boundary issues. If this is not achieved Government has indicated that authorities run the risk of their local plans being found ‘unsound’ at Examination e) Failure to co-operate with neighbouring authorities may result in an Inspector finding the plan unsound or requiring additional work to be carried out to demonstrate that the duty to co-operate included in the Localism Act has been carried out. York City Council’s Examination in Public has recently been delayed by 6 months in order to allow further work to be carried out to demonstrate that the duty has been complied with.

3) Consideration of the MoU a) The Leaders and Portfolio Holders from the three Fylde Coast authorities have met to consider the principles of producing a memorandum of understanding to assist in the duty to cooperate.

67 b) Following this, a Memorandum of Understanding has been drafted between Fylde, Wyre and Blackpool Councils which is attached. This has recently been considered by members of the Local Plan Steering group. Cabinet is asked to agree this and recommend its adoption to Council. It is intended to develop similar Memoranda of Understanding with other neighbouring authorities and statutory bodies. c) There may need for some minor changes to be made to the draft MoU before final adoption by Council to reflect any presentational amendments such as changing reference from Core Strategy to Local Plan.

Report Author Tel Date Doc ID

Paul Walker (01253) 658431 3rd May 2012

List of Background Papers

Name of Background Date Where available for inspection Document

Attached documents

Duty to co-operate, Memorandum of understanding between Blackpool Council, Fylde Borough Council and Wyre Borough Council

IMPLICATIONS

Finance There are no financial implications arising directly from the recommendations in this report.

Legal A failure to cooperate between local authorities may result in Local Plans being found unsound at examination.

Community Safety No implications

Human Rights and No implications Equalities

Sustainability and No implications Environmental Impact

Health & Safety and Risk No implications Management

68 DUTY TO CO-OPERATE

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

BETWEEN

BLACKPOOL COUNCIL, FYLDE BOROUGH COUNCIL AND

WYRE BOROUGH COUNCIL

1.0 Purpose of this report

1.1 This report sets out a draft Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Fylde Coast authorities of Blackpool Council, Fylde Borough Council and Wyre Council. It provides for those strategic planning issues which require cross boundary co-operation and collaboration to ensure the requirements of the Government’s ‘Duty to Cooperate’1 are met and that the development plans of each authority are sustainable, deliverable and found ‘sound’ at examination.

1.2 The MOU will also guide the approach that the three authorities take with respect to responding to strategic planning applications and nationally significant infrastructure projects2.

1.3 The following sections of the report provide:

• Context on the Government’s new requirement regarding the Duty to Cooperate; • Background on the Fylde Coast Peninsula and it geographical and economic characteristics; • Cross Boundary Issues - Draft proposals highlighting strategic areas of agreement including existing cooperation and collaboration between the three authorities; and areas for continued and future cooperation to fulfil the duty to cooperate; • Governance arrangements

2.0 Context

2.1 The Government is making some significant changes to the planning system that will affect the responsibilities of all local planning authorities. The intention is to make the planning system one that better supports sustainable economic growth and jobs, underpinned with the principles of localism, with less ‘top-down’ prescription and more ‘bottom up’ involvement.

2.2 The changes are being introduced through the Localism Bill which received Royal Assent on 15 November 2011 and is now an Act of Parliament (law). A key provision of the Act is the abolition of Regional Spatial

1 Localism Act 2011- Section 110.

2 Nationally significant infrastructure projects are examined by the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC)

69 Strategies3, the consequences of which means that local authorities will be responsible for their own strategic planning. The Localism Act gives the government powers to revoke the regional strategies once strategic environmental assessments are complete. Consultation on the EAs ended on the 20 January 2012. The comments received are currently being considered by DCLG.

2.3 The need for strategic planning remains and, to ensure that sensible planning for issues which extend beyond a local authority boundary still happens, the Government has introduced through the Localism Bill and the draft National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) a duty to cooperate on strategic planning issues.

2.4 The duty to cooperate applies to all local planning authorities and a number of other public bodies and requires working with neighbouring authorities and other bodies including Local Enterprise Partnerships on strategic priorities. It includes collaborating on evidence critical to understanding the needs of your area and the wider economic and housing market areas.

2.5 Strategic cross-boundary growth needs should be considered in an authority’s local plan and authorities will need to demonstrate that they have successfully cooperated with other bodies on cross-boundary issues. If this is not achieved Government has indicated that authorities run the risk of their local plans being found ‘unsound’ at Examination4.

2.6 In particular, the new duty: • relates to sustainable development or use of land that would have a significant impact on at least two local planning areas or on a planning matter that falls within the remit of a county council; • requires that councils set out planning policies to address such issues; • requires that councils and other bodies engage constructively, actively and on an ongoing basis to develop strategic policies in the preparation of development plan documents and the preparation of other local development documents and activities that can reasonably be considered to prepare the way for such documents; • requires councils to consider joint approaches to plan-making

2.7 Paragraphs 44 to 47 of the draft NPPF gives further guidance on ‘planning strategically across local boundaries’ and highlights the importance of joint working to meet development requirements that cannot be wholly met within a single local planning area, through either joint planning policies or informal strategies such as infrastructure and investment plans.

3.0 The Fylde Coast Peninsula – Sub regional functionality

3.1 The Fylde Coast Peninsula encompasses the area covered by the unitary authority of Blackpool Council and the two-tier area covered by Lancashire County Council and the borough councils of Fylde and Wyre. The area stretches from The Ribble Estuary in the south to Morecambe Bay in the north and the Forest of Bowland moorlands in the east. The area covers 384km2 and is home to 327,400 residents.

3.2 The Fylde Coast sub-region demonstrates a high level of self containment in terms of housing markets, travel to work patterns and economic functionality.

3 The Secretary of State may by order revoke the whole or any part of a regional strategy under Part 5 of that Act.

4 Paragraph 48 of the draft NPPF. 2

70 3.3 The Fylde Coast housing market area is broadly determined by patterns of local migration and travel to work patterns. There are strong local connections within that part of the Fylde Coast housing market area comprising Blackpool and west Fylde and Wyre (area in red map below). The remaining areas in pink of Wyre relate to a wider rural housing market and eastern Fylde relate more strongly to Preston.

Fylde Coast Housing Market Area

Fylde Coast Strategic Housing Market Assessment April 2008

3.4 The economic functionality of the Fylde Coast is apparent through the strong travel to work pattern and employment with a shared tourism and cultural offer; regionally and nationally significant advanced manufacturing (BAe Systems Warton and nuclear processing at Westinghouse Springfields); public sector administration; and a shared infrastructure including Blackpool Airport, coastal tramway and strategic highway and rail networks.

3.5 Reflecting this economic coherence was the establishment of the Multi Area Agreement in April 2009 and the Blackpool, Fylde and Wyre Economic Development Company in April 2010, recently rebranded the Blackpool Bay Company in 2011, to support local authority partnership working, coordinate and drive forward shared objectives and deliver a coordinated programme of capital investment.

4.0 Cross Boundary Issues - draft proposals

Context 4.1 Paragraph 23 of the Draft NPPF sets out strategic issues where co-operation might be appropriate including:

• the provision for new housing across a major conurbation or wider ‘housing market area’;

• the provision of major retail, leisure, industrial and other economic development across a ‘travel to work’ area; • the provision of infrastructure for transport, waste treatment, energy generation, telecommunications, water supply and water quality; • requirements for minerals extraction;

71 • the provision of heath, security, and major community infrastructure facilities; • measures needed to address the causes and consequences of climate change, including managing flood risk and coastal change; and • protection and enhancement of the natural and historic environment, including landscape.

4.2 The priority given to these issues will depend on local circumstances and strategic approaches may not be required in every situation. 4.3 Working together on strategic planning issues is not new to the Fylde Coast Authorities. Engagement on issues of common concern with respect to housing, employment land and transport infrastructure have been on going for many years.

4.4 Currently, the spatial planning policies of the three Fylde Coast Authorities are being reviewed through the development of Core Strategies.5 Whilst the new duty to co-operate proposes that neighbouring authorities should consider joint approaches to plan making6 the three authorities have decided to develop separate Core Strategies albeit closely aligned due to the different stages of the core strategy process at which each authority finds itself (Refer to Appendix A to this report), and having regard to the Unitary status of Blackpool Council. 4.5 .

4.6 To undertake a joint core strategy would further delay the adoption of an up to date plan for each authority. The coalition government has advised local planning authorities to ensure that they get up to date local plans in place as soon as possible. Without an up to date plan development decisions will be made on the basis of national policy, with the presumption being ‘yes’ to sustainable development unless the adverse impacts would ‘significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits’. This could result in development being approved which does not have the support of the authorities.

4.7 The three Fylde Coast authorities acknowledge that addressing cross-boundary issues is essential if sustainable development is to be delivered at a local level and economic growth and social and environmental well being for the sub-region is to be achieved. Those strategic issues which the three authorities consider need cross boundary co-operation are set out below.

Housing

4.7 The housing offer on the Fylde Coast has an important role in supporting the sub-region’s economy. The Fylde Coast housing market area (HMA) as a whole has a wide range of housing and neighbourhood offers, including some very attractive areas, but there are also some major concentrations of poor quality homes in very unattractive neighbourhoods. These neighbourhoods contribute to the under- performance of the local economy, whilst in the attractive areas, it is difficult for local people on modest incomes to be able to afford to buy or rent a suitable home.

4.8 To ensure we achieve a more balanced housing market the three authorities have undertaken a joint approach to addressing housing issues unrestricted by local authority boundaries. Significantly, the

5 Wyre Council has also produced as part of the Local Development Framework the ‘Fleetwood Thornton Area Action Plan’ adopted in September 2009.

6 Refer to paragraph 2.6 of this report.

72 authorities have appointed a Fylde Coast Housing Strategy Manager to develop and manage the sub- regional approach to housing and inform policy development. Various joint housing studies have also been produced to inform policy development including the need for new and affordable housing:

• a Fylde Coast Housing Market Assessment Study 2008 - to provide a robust evidence base to inform the policy approach to be adopted in the individual core strategies. This study is a key document in the Core Strategy evidence base and will be reviewed and updated to ensure it is appropriate for examination;

• the Fylde Coast Housing Strategy 2009 - to provide a common understanding, vision and set of priorities for housing across the Fylde Coast housing market area to provide a wider understanding of issues and priorities that enables public and private sector partners to develop their work in a clear strategic context

4.9 The three councils have also, through the Blackpool Fylde and Wyre Economic Development Company, and in association with Lancashire County Council and the Homes and Communities Agency (HCA), produced a Local Investment Plan (LIP) to help make clear the local objectives and delivery priorities for capital investment in housing and regeneration in support of economic improvement across the Fylde Coast area over the 2011 – 2014 period.

4.9 In considering housing need and requirements, the three authorities also need to address the accommodation requirements of Gypsies and Travellers. A Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment was undertaken by the University of Salford, commissioned by the North West Regional Assembly on behalf of the Lancashire authorities, published in May 2007. This study was in response to new obligations and requirements to resolve some of the long standing accommodation issues for members of the Gypsy and Traveller communities.

4.10 Recently both Fylde and Wyre Councils have come under pressure with respect to unauthorised Gypsy and Travellers encampments. In dealing with these encampments a lack of national and regional guidance in respect to how, and where the sub-regional need should be met has emerged. The three authorities will need to agree the evidence base and ensure that policies contained within their respective Local Development Frameworks address the accommodation needs and that the policy approach by each authority is appropriate and complementary across the sub-region.

Key issues:

• The need to work together to agree the housing provision and strategy approach across the Fylde Coast sub-region;

• The need for more balanced and wider housing choice in the HMA , with a focus on family and

affordable housing needs which will assist economic uplift in line with priorities establishe in the

Fylde Coast Local Investment Plan;

The need to promote strong and distinctive sustainable urban extension closely integrated with the

surrounding areas on land on the Fylde/Blackpool boundary around Junction 4 of the M55;

• The need to work together to provide for the accommodation needs of Gypsy and Traveller

communities across the Fylde Coast sub-region

• To agree the policy approach for lands in Blackpool/Fylde comprising Marton Moss;

• To agree complementary/joint approaches 5to the delivery and accessibility of affordable housing

73 Economy – Business and Industrial Development

4.11 There are strong links between the Fylde Coast Authorities in terms of travel to work patterns and employment, which warrant the joint consideration of future employment development for the sub- region.

4.12 The size of the Fylde Coast economy is around £4.8bn – some 2% of the North West economy but productivity per head significantly underperforms Lancashire and England average7 reflecting the predominance of the tourism sector. However the sub-region does contain significant specialism in advanced manufacturing in Fylde - aerospace at Warton, the site recently identified as a Local Enterprise Zone and nuclear processing at Springfields, accounting for almost half the industrial business lands in the sub-region. Other strengths exist in food processing, environmental technologies and chemicals. The chemical industry, environmental technology including Global Renewables at Thornton and fish processing associated with Fleetwood docks contribute significantly to employment in Wyre. The public sector and government agencies are also substantial providers of jobs in all three districts along with insurance providers Axa and Aegon in Fylde.

4.13 Decline in GVA and employment has been a shared experience across the Fylde Coast authorities. It is recognised by the three authorities that there is a need to strengthen, promote and enhance the tourism offer whilst at the same time further developing those key areas where there are strengths e.g. aerospace, nuclear, chemical, environmental technologies, food processing and corporate back office service functions. There is a need to persuade existing businesses in these areas to grow, and to provide the right conditions for other firms to invest.

4.14 Crucial to this is the provision of quality development sites to support new business growth. The peripheral location of the Fylde Coast within the North West makes it critical to provide a portfolio of sustainable employment opportunities to improve economic performance. The three Fylde Coast authorities have recognised the need to capitalise on the particular assets, strengths and opportunities of the sub region as a whole. The agreed Fylde Sub Region Employment Land Statement (2010) sets out the current position in terms of employment land availability8, and as previously mentioned a Fylde Coast Economic Strategy is currently being developed by the EDC to support the coordinated development of future employment across the Fylde Coast Sub-Region.

7 Blackpool GVA per head some £7-8,000 below Northwest and £15,000 below England average

8 Fylde Borough has recently commissioned consultants to carry out an Employment Land Study and Blackpool and Wyre Councils will also be updating their employment land evidence base this year.

Key issues:

• There are strong links between the Fylde Coast Authorities in terms of travel to work patterns and employment, which warrant the joint consideration of future employment development for the sub-region;

• To agree the sub-regional employment land requirement

• Key spatial priorities for economic development in the Fylde Coast sub-region are:

Land around junction 4 of the M55 – Fylde/Blackpool boundary to attract major new economic development to help strengthen the Fylde Coast economy; Blackpool Airport corridor – Blackpool/Fylde boundary The Enterprise Zone at BAe Systems – Warton - Fylde Land at Thornton – Cleveleys (Hillhouse) - Wyre A6 Corridor/Garstang - Wyre Central Business District – Blackpool Town Centre • That a mixed development approach at Whyndyke, including employment development located closest to Junction 4 of the M55, is the most sustainable approach to development at this location;

Retail

4.15 Retailing is a key strategic issue over which the Fylde Coast Authorities have collaborated. In September 2007 White Young Green were commissioned by the three authorities to carry out the first sub-regional retail study for the Fylde Coast. The study, which was published in June 2008, was undertaken to provide an in-depth analysis of the retail provision within the main centres of the Fylde Coast Sub-Region, including an assessment of the extent to which the centres were meeting the retail needs of the local population and the role of the local shopping network and the sub-regional shopping hierarchy.

4.16 This 2008 study was recently updated by Roger Tym and Partners - Joint Fylde Coast Retail Study 2011 - in order to reflect significant changes over the past 2 years. These include: major new developments, in particular the extension to the Houndshill Shopping Centre in Blackpool; economic changes which have impacted recently; forecast retail expenditure growth rates; changes in national guidance with respect to the publication of PPS4 (December 2009) and the introduction of the new test of soundness for Development Plan Documents in PPS12 (June 2008) in that it will be essential that any evidence base on which Core Strategies are based is compliant with these tests so as to ensure their soundness and effectiveness.

4.17 The 2011 study provides evidence to inform the respective core strategies of the three authorities with respect to: • the retail role of towns within the Fylde Coast9 and their position in the retail hierarchy; • potential future development needs for each authority; and

9 The defined town centres within the Sub-Region are Blackpool, Lytham, St Annes, Kirkham, Fleetwood, Cleveleys, Poulton-le-Fylde and Garstang.

75 • provide evidence to effectively resist retail applications which are not in accordance with the development strategies of the three authorities.

4.18 The 2011 study has been endorsed by the Executives of each of the three authorities to be used as appropriate evidence base on which to inform policy in the local development frameworks

Key recommendations in the Fylde Coast Retail Study 2011 that have strategic implications:

• that the three authorities pursue a strategy of increase in the amount of comparison goods expenditure that is spent in the sub-region, from a current level of 75% of total expenditure to 78% in 2021 and 80% in 2026

• each authorities’ share of the sub-regional floorspace total reflects its current share of retained comparison goods

• that the role of Blackpool Town Centre as a strong sub-regional centre, should be restored thereby reducing the unsustainable level of expenditure flowing to out of centre locations within the catchment area, and to competing destinations outside the catchment area

• restoring Blackpool’s role as a strong sub-regional centre is at the expense of out of centre locations not at the expense of other centres in the Fylde coast sub-region

• a presumption that there is no need to plan for a net gain in floorspace in out of centre locations. The three authorities should plan to accommodate the indicative levels of floorspace identified in the study on sites located within and on the edge of the identified town centres

• there is no overall quantitative need for further convenience goods floorspace in the sub- region for the period up to 2021

Transport

4.19 Developing a more sustainable and efficient transport network across the Fylde Coast is vital for our economic prosperity and our social and environmental well being. Our sub-regional transport infrastructure needs to support our economic priorities and effectively integrate with future development locations to reduce the need to travel, making it safe and easy for Fylde Coast residents to access jobs and services; for visitors to access and enjoy the tourism and cultural offer; and for business to be attracted to invest in the sub-region.

4.20 The transport infrastructure of the Fylde Coast comprises road, rail, tram, air and port links supported by a comprehensive network of footpaths and cycle routes.

4.21 At the heart of the transport network is the M55 linking Blackpool with the M6 north of Preston. This is supported by a strategic trunk road network including the key routes of the A583 (Preston-Kirkham- Blackpool), the A584 (Freckleton/Warton –Lytham St. Annes-Blackpool) and the A585(T) (M55 Junction 3 to Fleetwood).

4.22 Main line rail connects Blackpool North via Poulton-le-Fylde and Kirkham with Preston and the South Fylde line links Lytham St. Annes via Kirkham to Preston and Blackpool South. Network Rail’s project to electrify the line from Blackpool north to Preston and on to Manchester will help address current poor 8

76 links to the national rail network; facilitate rail services to the major UK cities and increase the potential for modal shift to relieve the road network.

4.23 The Blackpool Tramway system runs from Starr Gate in south Blackpool to north Fleetwood some 11 miles along the coast assisting north-south movements. The tramway has seen significant investment with a comprehensive upgrade to be completed in 2012 providing a modern accessible transport system.

4.24 The Fylde Coast also benefits from the presence of two international gateways. Blackpool International Airport located on the Fylde/Blackpool boundary operates regular charter and scheduled flights throughout the UK and to various European destinations whilst the Port of Fleetwood is one of four major ports in the North West.

4.25 Whilst the transport infrastructure for the Fylde Coast could be considered as comprehensive there are major strategic challenges which need to be addressed to improve our economic competitiveness. These include:

• The A585(T) corridor currently suffers from severe congestion at 10 junctions. At peak times 70% of all travel to work trips within the Fylde Coast are made by car. This causes serious problems of congestion and noise intensity in residential areas. The problem of access and connectivity is exacerbated by growing demands of the industrial area of Thornton;

• The poor connections heading north between the M55 and Fleetwood in particular could undermine future economic development activity of the Fleetwood-Thornton Development Corridor (to which the adopted Fleetwood-Thornton Area Action Plan, is applicable). In the south access to the BAe Systems site at Warton needs to be improved to allow redundant brownfield land to be sustainable for future development. Such connectivity issues act as a barrier to communities accessing employment;

• Public transport connectivity within the Fylde Coast area and links outside are poor. Rail links between some of the key urbanised areas and market towns of Wyre and Fylde and the wider North West are poor. The St Annes connection to Preston, for example, is restricted by a single track line with trains only running once every hour in both directions. The propensity of those in the South Fylde rail line catchment area to use rail is well below the national average. There is a real need to increase service frequency and reliability, meeting transport demand from Lytham St Annes and supporting regeneration in Blackpool South. In addition, the tram system is disconnected from the rail infrastructure; and

• Blackpool Airport is in need of development if growth potential is to be achieved. The runway is not currently able to handle some of the larger aircraft. Public transport access to the Airport is relatively poor. There is no rail station and at present no buses directly serve the site. If the airport is to truly appeal as a sub-regional entity, there needs to be investment in transport infrastructure to the site from not only across the Fylde Coast but also from places such as Preston

Key Issues

• Continue to support improvements to the A585(T) to relieve short to medium term road congestion along that route and within the Blackpool Urban area and improve the transport of freight

• Continue to safeguard land for the M55 to Norcross Link (Blue Route) to relieve longer term road congestion

• Support the sustainable development of Blackpool Airport as an economic priority for the Fylde Coast sub region including improvements to access by public transport

• Continue to support improvements to the South Fylde Rail line to enable the line to perform a stronger role in delivering improved accessibility to Fylde Coast towns

• Continue to support reinstatement of the Poulton to Fleetwood rail line to support the Fleetwood- Thornton Development Corridor and the Port of Fleetwood

• Support further improvements to the tram network to assist north-south movements along the coast from Fleetwood to Starr Gate; to support links to Talbot Gateway and Blackpool International Airport; and to integrate the tramway with other modes of transport including the South Fylde rail link ;

• To continue to support the M55 to Heyhouses road link;

• Exploring the possibilities of agreeing a common approach to parking standards across the sub-region

Surface Water Drainage and Waste Water

4.26 Water infrastructure capacity is a key cross boundary issue which will directly affect the delivery of built development across the Fylde Coast. The main issues relate to surface water drainage; the capacity of the existing sewage network and the need to ensure that proposals for new development have no adverse effect on the bathing water quality along the Fylde Coast. This is a vital issue as the quality of our beaches and bathing water underpins our tourism offer and our future economic prosperity.

4.27 Recent studies have been undertaken to inform the evidence base including the Central Lancashire and Blackpool Outline Water Cycle Study completed in April 2011. Whilst this study covers those authorities in Central Lancashire and Blackpool included in the Growth Point area the study provides an assessment of the flood risk planning data, foul drainage, surface water management water resources and infrastructure issues including information on the wider Fylde Coast area. In addition Blackpool is currently producing a Blackpool Surface Water Management Plan researching and aligning all data, information and legislation, in liaison with United Utilities and the Environment Agency on critical capacity issues, with a focus on existing assets, identifying flood risks, mitigation measures, and developing an on-going implementation plan. It includes wider consideration of cross-boundary surface water infrastructure and drainage issues along the coastal belt in order to generate and develop sustainable drainage measures.

4.28 From the evidence base it is clear that the main cross boundary issues relate to network capacity issues which are contributing to surface water flooding and spills of untreated waste water into the Irish Sea 10

78 putting at risk Fylde Coast bathing waters under the new Bathing Water legislation due to come into force in 2015.

4.29 It is therefore imperative that the three authorities agree a supportive approach to surface water and waste water management to ensure that the economic prosperity of the Fylde Coast is not compromised and that the future development requirements of the sub-region can be accommodated. This includes the approach to ad hoc development not compromising the delivery of required infrastructure improvements to address the capacity issues of the Fylde Coast.

4.30 In recognition of the issues surrounding water management a Fylde Peninsula Water Management Group was set up in April 2011. This group is a partnership comprising the Environment Agency, United Utilities, Wyre and Fylde Borough Councils, Blackpool Council, Lancashire County Council and Keep Britain Tidy. The purpose of the group is to provide a sustainable and integrated approach to the management of coastal protection; water quality, including bathing waters, surface water drainage, including flooding and development. 4.30 Key Issue

To agree a common approach to surface water and waste management including the approach adopted to ad hoc development to ensure the delivery of required infrastructure improvements needed to accommodate future development requirements is not compromised.

5.0 Governance

5.1 The Duty to Co-operate requires that councils engage constructively, actively and on an ongoing basis. There is therefore a need to establish governance arrangements and protocols to ensure that the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate are met and that the three authorities can demonstrate at examination of their Core Strategies that appropriate and constructive co-operation has taken place to ensure sustainable outcomes to strategic planning issues.

5.2 It is initially proposed that:

• a Council Leaders and Chief Executives Steering Group is established to oversee the work undertaken under the Duty to Co-operate. The group will be chaired on a rotational basis by the Council Leader of each of the three Authorities. A key remit of the group will be to resolve difficult and sensitive issues reaching common understandings;

• a framework of joint member and officer thematic working groups and task and finish working groups is established to develop policy around key issues. These would consist of up to three Members from each participating authority and would report to the Leaders and Chief Executives Steering Group. Examples of policies areas includes a joint Fylde Coast approach Community Infrastructure Levy, Gypsy and Traveler provision and Employment Land where all three authorities would come together and development to the south of Blackpool which would include just Fylde and Blackpool.

79 • an Officer Working Group will provide support to all joint working arrangements as appropriate and on request;

• Governance meetings as detailed above will be will take place as and when required. All meetings will be minuted to provide on going evidence of co-operation;

• Under the Duty to Co-operate the three authorities will commit to constructive engagement, good communications and transparency, seeking innovative sustainable solutions to strategic issues to ensure the environmental, social and economic prosperity of the Fylde Coast sub-region;

• Where appropriate and necessary develop a joint evidence base to inform the policy development on strategic issues;

80 APPENDIX A

CORE STRATEGY PRODUCTION

Fylde Borough Council

Consulted on ‘Issues, Vision and Objectives’ in February/March 2011.

The proposed schedule for the proceeding stages:

Production Stage Timetable

Consultation on spatial options Jun - Jul 2012 Consultation on preferred options May - Jun 2013

Pre submission Document Jan - Mar 2014

Submission to Secretary of State May - Jun 2014 Adoption Dec 2014

Wyre Council

Consulted on ‘Issues and Options’ in 2008. The proposed schedule for the proceeding stages:

Production Stage Timetable Consultation on preferred options April/May 2012 Pre Submission Document November 2012

Submission to Secretary of State January 2013 Adoption November 2013

As part of the Local Development Framework N.B. Wyre Council have also produced The Fleetwood Thornton Area Action Plan adopted in September 2009.

Blackpool Council

Consulted on ‘Issues and Options’ in 2008. Consulted on Preferred Option July 2010 Change of administration March 2011 with subsequent ‘Member Strategy Review’

The proposed schedule for the proceeding stages is now:

Production Stage Timetable Consultation on Revised Preferred Option Spring 2012 Pre Submission Document December 2012 Submission to Secretary of State Spring 2013 Adoption December 2013

82 REPORT

REPORT OF MEETING DATE ITEM NO

RESOURCES DIRECTORATE - FOR CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMUNITY FOCUS CABINET 23 MAY 2012 12 SCRUTINY COMMITTEE

SPECIAL COMMUNITY FOCUS SCRUTINY COMMITTEE - RECOMMENDATIONS

Public Item This item is for consideration in the public part of the meeting.

Summary The Community Focus Scrutiny Committee met on 17 May 2012 to consider the final report and recommendations of the Shale Gas Task and Finish Group. There were various recommendations made by the committee that Cabinet may wish to consider. The minutes of the meeting are attached.

Recommendation To consider the recommendations of the Special Community Focus Scrutiny Committee held on 17 May 2012.

Reasons for recommendation To allow formal consideration of recommendations arising from the Community Focus Scrutiny Committee

Alternative options considered and rejected None applicable as the recommendations are coming forward from the scrutiny committee.

Cabinet Portfolio(s) The items fall within the following Cabinet portfolio(s):

Environment and Partnerships - Councillor Thomas Threlfall Planning and Development - Councillor Dr Trevor Fiddler

83 Report

1. The report is classed as urgent on the grounds that the Department of Energy & Climate Change require responses to their consultation document “Presse Hall Shale Gas Fracturing Review and Recommendations for Induced Seismic Mitigation” by 25 May 2012.

2. To consider endorsing the recommendations of the meeting of the Special Community Focus Scrutiny Committee which met on 17 May 2012 as detailed in the minutes attached.

Report Author Tel Date Doc ID

Lyndsey Lacey (01253) 658504 May 2012 CFSC Recs

List of Background Papers

Name of document Date Where available for inspection

Agenda and Minutes of Community Focus Scrutiny May 2012 www.fylde.gov.uk Committee

IMPLICATIONS Finance None arising directly from this report

Legal None arising directly from this report

Community Safety None arising directly from this report

Human Rights and None arising directly from this report Equalities Sustainability None arising directly from this report

Health & Safety and Risk None arising directly from this report Management

Attached documents

17 May 2012 - Community Focus Scrutiny Committee minutes

84 Special Community Focus Scrutiny Committee – 17 May 2012

Special Community Focus Scrutiny Committee

Date: Thursday, 17 May 2012

Venue: Town Hall, St Annes

Committee members: Councillor Kiran Mulholland (Chairman)

Councillor Christine Akeroyd (Vice-Chairman)

Councillors Maxine Chew, Fabian Craig- Wilson, Susanne Cunningham, Gail Goodman JP, Nigel Goodrich, Howard Henshaw, ADK MALAYSIA, Paul Hodgson, Ken Hopwood, Linda Nulty, Dawn Prestwich, Louis Rigby, Viv Willder

Officers: Allan Oldfield, Tracy Scholes, Ian Curtis, Andrew Dickson, Lyndsey Lacey

Other members: Councillors Julie Brickles, Alan Clayton, Leonard Davies, Richard Redcliffe

Members of the public: Mr Mike Hill (Task and Finish Group’s Technical Advisor)

Approx 9 members of the public were in attendance

Public Platform Prior to consideration of item 5 below, Mr Phillip Mitchell (resident of Blackpool and Chairman of the Blackpool & Fylde Green Party), Dr Sue Parkin (resident and member of the Residents Action on Fylde Fracking) and Ms Helen Rimmer (representative of Friends of the Earth) had requested to speak under the public platform arrangements.

The individuals concerned raised various questions relating to the perceived narrow remit of the Task and Finish Group, other countries involvement in the fracking industry, use of chemicals by the operating company, role, responsibility and accountability arrangements of the proposed “Shale Gas Tsar” and the associated implications/impacts of the shale gas operations on the local communities the countryside, biodiversity, infrastructure, climate

85 Special Community Focus Scrutiny Committee – 17 May 2012 change, farming and the tourism industry. These were addressed during the course of the presentation.

At the conclusion of the public platform presentations, the Chairman, Councillor Mulholland explained that the borough council has no regulatory responsibilities for shale gas operations and therefore had limited powers to carry out such a review.

2. Confirmation of minutes RESOLVED: To approve the minutes of the Community Focus Scrutiny Committee held on 28 February 2012 as a correct record for signature by the Chairman.

3. Councillor Peter Wood The Chairman made reference to the recent resignation of Councillor Peter Wood from the Council and wished to place on record his thanks and appreciation to him for his diligent approach in his work over the last year.

4. Substitute members The following substitutions were reported under council procedure rule 22.3:

Councillor Louis Rigby for Councillor Kath Harper

Councillor Fabian Craig-Wilson for Councillor Tim Armit

Councillor Howard Henshaw for Councillor Tony Ford

5. Final Report – Shale Task and Finish Group The Chairman, Councillor Kiran Mulholland introduced the final report of the appointed Task and Finish Group assigned to look at the shale gas exploratory operations throughout the borough. Following its process of information/evidence gathering, the comprehensive report provided details of the background to the exercise and the work of the Group including its findings and recommendations. During his presentation, Councillor Mulholland made reference to paragraph 9.3 of the report and the associated plan. It was suggested that the plan was fairly ambiguous in that it did not clearly represent licensed areas (PEDL Petroleum Exploration Development License area) where Cuadrilla is permitted to explore for gas within the Bowland Shale area. In this regard, updated plans were circulated at the meeting.

86 Special Community Focus Scrutiny Committee – 17 May 2012

In addition to the above, the Chairman explained the reasoning for the initial timescale for conducting the review not being met. The Chairman then invited comments and questions from the members on the content of the report and advised that Mr Mike Hill (The Task & Finish Group’s Technical Advisor) would address any technical concerns raised.

A number of matters were broached by members. Amongst them were questions about the feasibility of recommending a moratorium on future operations, affects on climate change/carbon emissions, the transportation, storage and management of waste water, poor regulatory and monitoring arrangements, local economy, infrastructure, road and transportation issues, the anticipated role of the “shale gas tsar” and the need for robust planning arrangements to be put in place at the full production stage.

In addition to the above, concerns were also raised about the lack of involvement in the review by United Utilities, the Health and Safety Executive (Off shore Division) and the MP for Fylde. A common theme of the comments made by members was issues associated with the full production stage. The Chairman reemphasised that the remit of the Task and Finish Group was to look at the exploratory operations only. He added that the majority of concerns raised by members of the public and the committee related to full production/commercial matters and that these would be addressed at the appropriate time. Following a full discussion and debate it was moved by Councillor Ken Hopwood and seconded by Councillor Linda Nulty that the Council seek a moratorium on future shale gas operations. This resulted in a recoded vote and the voting was as follows: For approval of a moratorium (3) Councillor Ken Hopwood, Linda Nulty, Howard Henshaw Against approval of a moratorium (9) Councillors Kiran Mulholland, Christine Akeroyd, Maxine Chew, Fabian Craig-Wilson, Susanne Cunningham, Gail Goodman, Nigel Goodrich, Peter Hodgson, Viv Willder Upon the vote being LOST, a further recorded vote was taken (moved by Councillor Kiran Mulholland and seconded by Councillor Fabian Craig-Wilson) on the recommendations (detailed below) and the voting was as follows: For approval of the recommendations (12) Councillors Kiran Mulholland, Christine Akeroyd, Maxine Chew, Fabian Craig-Wilson, Susanne Cunningham, Howard Henshaw, Gail Goodman, Nigel Goodrich, Paul Hodgson, Linda Nulty, Dawn Prestwich, Viv Willder Against approval of the recommendations (0) Abstentions (2) Councillors Louis Rigby, Ken Hopwood

87 Special Community Focus Scrutiny Committee – 17 May 2012

Recommendations for referral to Cabinet:

1. To write to the Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) seeking the introduction of a comprehensive regulatory framework being put in place specifically for the onshore shale gas sector. In this regard, the regulatory framework should be prescriptive in character and, in particular, should cover (but not limited to) well integrity, cement quality, casing strings, annular pressures, surface methane detectors, formation integrity tests, cement bond logs, tests and thresholds for seismic activity, post-tremor actions, sourcing of water for fracking, storage, disposal and recycling of produced water and the testing of local bore holes/wells before and after operational activities.

2. To pursue with DECC the need for the regulatory framework to provide for the appointment of a “shale gas tsar” whose remit would include (but not limited to) overseeing the development, implementation and monitoring of the regulatory framework. Their remit would include ensuring that all relevant regulatory agencies properly carry out their functions relating to onshore shale gas, and that their inspection regimes are robust and appropriate.

3. To seek an assurance from DECC that the regulatory framework provides for a permit system under which each stage of well construction is inspected to ensure that the integrity of its construction complies with relevant regulations.

4. To recommend to DECC that the costs of implementing and maintaining the regulatory framework, including the necessary inspection regime be met by imposing a levy on operators of onshore shale gas wells.

5. In tandem with the introduction of the comprehensive regulatory framework, to ask DECC to encourage operators to continue to adopt and work to voluntary codes and best practice standards, including standards of transparency and accountability to local communities.

6. To request that DECC and the shale gas tsar conduct or commission continuing credible research into (but not limited to) the following issues:

. The potential effects of the use of any of the chemicals used in onshore shale gas exploration and production.

. The on-going monitoring, collection, transportation and disposal of waste materials and fracked water (including radioactive waste) from the various sites in Fylde and the number of journeys required.

. The effect on water supplies of the use of high volumes of mains water in fracking operations, particularly in view of current shortages in various parts of the country, and whether seawater could be used as an alternative.

88 Special Community Focus Scrutiny Committee – 17 May 2012

7. To seek an assurance that the planning authority when considering any application for planning permission for shale gas drilling operations, ensures that an appropriate screening assessment is in place. In this respect, give appropriate weight to the need to avoid industrialisation of the countryside to the detriment of the traditional rural environment.

8. To ensure that the Council via its Overview and Scrutiny Committee keeps a watching brief on any ongoing and future fracking operations.

9. To seek the support of Cabinet and the relevant Portfolio holders in writing to the MP for Fylde, Secretary of State for Energy & Climate Change along the lines detailed above.

------

89 REPORT

REPORT OF MEETING DATE ITEM NO

DEVELOPMENT 23RD MAY CABINET 13 SERVICES 2012

GRANNYS BAY BEACH RECHARGE AND PROTECTION WORKS, FAIRHAVEN FUNDED CAPITAL BUDGET INCREASE

Public Item This item is for consideration in the public part of the meeting.

Summary

As a result of erosion, capital work is required to the coastal defences at Grannys Bay, Fairhaven. The report presents proposals for a capital budget increase to carry out the works, fully funded from a grant secured from the Environment Agency (EA).

Recommendation

That Cabinet agrees an addition to the capital programme of £80,000 in 2012/13 fully funded from an Environmental Agency grant secured, and agrees to the commencement of the works at the appropriate time to deliver the scheme detailed in the report.

Cabinet Portfolio The item falls within the following Cabinet portfolio: Environment and Partnerships - Councillor Thomas Threlfall

Report

This item is classed as urgent on the grounds that the item is a funded budget increase report and we only received confirmation of the funding for late last week. The nature of the work requires the project to be carried out in the summer months and as such approval is required to start the process of procurement and awarding the work.

Capital work is required following the draw down of the beach fronting a 30m stretch of the coastal defences at Grannys Bay, Fairhaven. Beach levels fronting the sea defences in the area have dropped, eroding and undermining the wall revetment. The vertical face of the existing defences is causing scour to the front of the wall, voiding under the

Continued....

90 promenade, and erosion of the rear grass bank. The situation is worsening with ongoing tidal action. The consequence of further voiding and undermining would be collapse of the promenade and sea wall, along with adjacent open space and highway. The works are considered urgent.

The voiding beneath the promenade has caused a number of safety issues, including trip hazards following subsidence of parts of the promenade, and potential crushing should anyone make access into the void or in front of the wall. This has been mitigated on a short term basis with the regular regrading of adjacent sand, although this activity is not sustainable in the long term.

The Shoreline Management Plan for the area recommends a “Hold the Line” policy for this area.

Due to its limited scale the proposed scheme does not require planning permission, and as such does not have a significant environmental impact.

A Marine Licence for the work is currently being sought through the Marine Management Organisation (MMO). A Flood Defence Consent is currently being sought from the Environment Agency (EA).

The aims of this project are to:

i. Improve and retain beach levels fronting the coastal defences to reduce further damage to the structures.

ii. To maintain the standard of protection offered to nearby properties protected by the coastal defences.

iii. To remove a significant health and safety risk to beach users, caused by the voiding.

iv. To retain a healthy visitor economy.

Photo 1: Existing wall undermined Photo 2: Previous scheme in 2007

Option 1 Do nothing - do not undertake the works

The Do Nothing option would result in further loss of beach material, collapse of the existing sea wall, and a falling standard of protection to nearby properties, as the sea would continue to erode the grassed open space behind. See Photo.1. It would also lead

91 to unacceptable health & safety risks for beach users, leading to reduced access to the beach, and subsequent impact on the social and recreational benefits offered. This in turn would have a negative effect on tourism.

It is concluded that the Do Nothing option is not a feasible option given the likely effect on health and safety, the coastal defences and the economic considerations above. This option does not meet any of the objectives listed.

Option 2 Sheet pile in front of the wall and underpin void with concrete This option has been considered but rejected as it is thought it would move the area of potential scour northwards along the beach, so this operation would have to be repeated in the future. This option was in fact carried out to the adjacent wall immediately south of the undermined wall, over a distance of 82m in 2007. The sheet piles are now exposed as the waves hitting the vertical wall has caused scour, and a fall in beach levels. See Photo. 2.

Option 3 Sheet pile in front of the wall, and underpin gap with concrete and protect with rock armour This option has been rejected in terms of access, the environment, and aesthetics. It would, however, be a more cost effective solution than the preferred option. The proposal falls within a biological heritage site, and there is a SSSI, a RAMSAR site, and a SPA in front of the proposal. There is an RSPB visitor centre adjacent, and this option would reduce access for members, parties and the general public to view the birds of the bay. It would also reduce the area of a biological heritage site. It would be an ugly solution, as it would not be in keeping with the existing defences in an area of considerable natural beauty. It may result in a reduction in tourists.

Option 4 Preferred Option: Sheet pile in front of the wall, construct concrete stepped revetment, promenade, and set back wave wall The preferred option is to sheet pile in front of the existing retaining wall below beach level over a length of 30m, and construct a stepped concrete revetment between the sheet piles and existing retaining wall. It is then proposed to overlay the grasscrete blocks and extend the promenade in concrete to a width of 5m, curving to 8m wide adjacent the existing access footway and steps. The junction between the proposed promenade and grass bank will be finished with a curved bullnosed concrete wave return wall. It is anticipated that the stepped revetment will reflect the wave energy and cause accretion, eliminating scour along the Grannys Bay frontage, and cause beach levels to rise, assisting flood protection. It is anticipated that wave overtopping of the promenade will still occur on occasions, but the waves will be contained and reflected back from the set back wave wall. The widened promenade will provide greater protection of the grass bank, as it will permit a greater volume of overtopping to be retained. The proposed works will extend approximately 2.5m beyond the toe of the existing retaining wall at beach level.

The proposed work will permit easier access to the beach from the highway. The grass bank will be re-graded to facilitate this. The set back wall and stepped revetments will provide extensive seating areas to view the birds of the bay and Ribble Estuary. The new promenade will accomodate a larger number of walkers, and provide better access for the disabled. It will also eliminate potential trip hazards. It is thought the proposal will provide a boost for tourism and the economy alike.

This option is the preferred option outlined in the Blackpool and Fylde Coast Protection Strategy.

92 Financial Implications

The Environment Agency has agreed to fund £80k in 2012/13 towards the cost of the scheme. This is estimated to be sufficient to complete the beach work and protect the existing structure. This comprises driving the sheet piles, constructing the capping beam and stepped revetment, and infilling the voided promenade. It is proposed that expenditure from the Council’s existing coast protection maintenance budget which is £50k per annum will be made in subsequent years, to complete the work on a staged basis. This will comprise constructing the new promenade, the rear wave return wall, and regrading the grass bank.

A contractor is currently being sourced to carry out the works through a joint competitive tender process with Wyre Borough Council, who are carrying out similar EA funded work at the same time. This will result in economies of scale.

Cost Breakdown of the Scheme

Activity Estimated Cost £ Obtain Marine Licence £4,000

Design and Supervision Costs Undertaken in-house using existing resources Construction £71,000

Risk Based Contingencies £5,000

Total Estimated Cost £80,000

Financed by the Environment Agency £80,000

All ongoing future revenue costs associated with this scheme will be met from existing revenue budgets.

Risk Assessment

An application for a marine licence was made on 12th December 2011. This resulted in numerous consultations with groups such as Natural England (NE) and the RSPB. It also involved a one month public consultation. Indications are that a marine licence will be granted with imposed environmental conditions. One of the main conditions which has now been set is to carry out the work between June 1st and August 31st, to negate the potential disturbance to the over wintering birds. As a result, this work is considered urgent. In addition, only contractors with strong environmental policies will be considered for the work.

The loss of beach, which is a biological heritage site, and the associated vegetation and habitat has been an issue. The various environmental groups, however, now appear to have accepted the proposal on the grounds that due to its scale it has limited impact. The small take up of land is a sandy/pebbly beach, not salt marsh, and it is anticipated that ongoing mitigation works elsewhere, such as sand dune enhancement, will offset any potential loss.

93 Given the specific window of time for carrying out the work and pending final approvals work may be underway in mid July when The Open is held. However given the scale and location of the work it will not have any undue implications which would warrant deferment until 2013 given the urgency of need.

A Flood Defence Consent is currently being sought from the EA, and indications are that it will be issued shortly.

IMPLICATIONS

Finance Included in the main body of the report

Legal, human rights and A Marine Licence and Flood Defence Consent will be equalities required prior to engaging a Contractor

Community Safety Covered during the construction work under the Construction Design and Management Regulations (CDM)

Sustainability and Included in the main body of the report Environmental Impact

Report Author Tel Date Doc ID

Stephen Ball (01253) 658493 Date of report 23 April 2012

List of Background Papers

Name of document Date Where available for inspection

Proposed General Arrangement Drawing No. November 2011 Council Office TS11042/01B, Section A-A Drawing No. TS11042/02C

94 Cabinet – 3 May 2012

Cabinet

Date: Thursday, 3 May 2012

Venue: Town Hall, St Annes

Cabinet members: Councillor David Eaves (Leader) Councillor Susan Fazackerley (Deputy Leader) Councillors Karen Buckley, Dr. Trevor Fiddler, Cheryl Little, Albert Pounder, Thomas Threlfall

Other Councillors: Councillors Christine Akeroyd, Fabian Craig-Wilson, Leonard Davies, Viv Willder

Officers: Allan Oldfield, Paul Walker, Paul O’Donoghue, Gary Sams, Lyndsey Lacey

Members of the public: There were no members of the public present

1. Declarations of interest

Members were reminded that any personal/prejudicial interests should be declared as required by the Council’s Code of Conduct adopted in accordance with the Local Government Act 2000.

Councillor Cheryl Little declared a personal and prejudicial interest in item 6 relating to Accommodation Project- Asset Disposals and withdrew from the meeting.

2. Confirmation of minutes

RESOLVED: To approve the minutes of the Cabinet meeting held on 21 March 2012 as a correct record for signature by the Chairman.

3. Urgent items

There were no items of urgent business.

4. Urgent Essential Slippage Items from 2011/12

Paul O’Donoghue, Chief Financial Officer introduced a report on urgent essential slippage items from 2011/12. In brief, Mr O’Donoghue explained that a number of approved items of expenditure budgeted for in 2011/12 had been committed but remained unspent at the end of the financial year as a result of circumstances outside the control of the budget holder. Due to the urgent nature of these items, Cabinet was requested to consider approving slippage of

95 Cabinet – 3 May 2012 those items into 2012/13 with the expenditure being fully funded from the budget allocated in 2011/12. Mr O’Donoghue added that these projects that could not be delayed until later in the year when the other slippage items are presented to Cabinet. A copy of the requests received to transfer 2011/12 budget to 2012/13 was included as appendix to the report. Councillor Buckley commented that in future, all slippage items should be considered by members via the overview and scrutiny process prior to Cabinet. Councillor Eaves endorsed this approach.

In reaching its decision, Cabinet considered the details set out in the report before it and at the meeting and RESOLVED to approve:

1. To approve the slipping of the urgent revenue budget items totaling £78k, and the urgent capital items totaling £61k (identified in Appendix A of the report) with the expenditure in 2012/13 being funded from approved but underspent budget provision identified for these schemes in the 2011/12 financial year. 2. To approve the slippage budget for works at Bath Street car park for immediate commencement. (It is proposed that the decision should be implemented immediately for the purposes of Standing Order 8, Part D, Appendix 5, as any delay could result in loss of income to the Council and risk of claims from users of the car park from the existing poor surface.)

5. Exclusion of the Public

RESOLVED: That under Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business, on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraphs 1 & 3 of Schedule 12A of the Act.

6. Accommodation Project – Asset Disposals

Paul Walker (Director of Development Services) and Gary Sams (Principal Estates Surveyor) presented a comprehensive report on proposals for the disposal of the third of the three assets earmarked for sale to support the essential refurbishment of the Town Hall. Details of the proposals were set out in the report.

In reaching its decision, Cabinet considered the details set out in the report before it and at the meeting and RESOLVED to approve:

1. To agree to the disposal of the Public Offices site and buildings to the Group identified in the report on the terms set out in the Heads of Terms previously circulated. 2. To agree that any variations to the agreed Heads of Terms be reported back to Cabinet for further approval. 3. To present a further report on the final arrangements proposed for the implementation of the accommodation project prior to contractual commitment being given on the proposed scheme for the Town Hall refurbishment. 4. To convey Cabinet’s thanks and appreciation to the officers concerned for the hard work undertaken in progressing the project.

You may re-use this document/publication (not including logos) free of charge in any format or medium. You must re-use it accurately and not in a misleading context. The material must be acknowledged as Fylde Borough Council copyright and you must give the title of the source document/publication. Where we have identified any third party copyright material you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.

This document/publication is also available on our website at www.fylde.gov.uk

Any enquiries regarding this document/publication should be sent to us at the Town Hall, St Annes Road West, St Annes FY8 1LW, or to [email protected].