ST HELENS BOROUGH COUNCIL (Present) The Mayor (Councillor...

ST HELENS BOROUGH COUNCIL

At a meeting of the St Helens Borough Council held on 4 November 2009

(Present) The Mayor (Councillor Shields) (Chairman), Councillors N J Ashcroft, W Ashcroft, Astbury, Ayres, Banks, Beirne, Bowden, Caunce, Crowther, Deakin, De'Asha, Dunn, Evans, Ferry, Glover, Grice, Grunewald, Hargreaves, Hennessy, Kavanagh, Kent, Knight, Knowles, Lowe, Maloney, Martinez-Williams, McCauley, McGuire, McQuade, Murphy, Parr, Pearl, Pearson, Quinn, Rimmer, Roberts, Roughley, Seddon, E Sheldon, J Sheldon, Sims, Smith, Spencer, Taylor, Stephanie Topping and Stephen Topping

(Not Present) Councillor Ward -------

41. THE MINUTES OF THE COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON 2 SEPTEMBER 2009 **** Resolved that the Minutes of the meeting of the Council held on

2 September 2009 be approved.

42. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE An apology for absence was received from Councillor Ward.

43. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST FROM MEMBERS

Item Title Member(s) Interest

5(4) To hear and respond to any questions submitted by Members in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 9

Councillor Hennessy Declared a personal interest in the item.

8 Report of the Executive – Corporate Financial Report

Councillors Astbury, Bowden, Crowther, Evans, Ferry, Hennessy, Knight, Lowe, Martinez-Williams, McCauley, McQuade, Murphy, Quinn, Rimmer, Roberts, Seddon, Shields, Sims, Smith, Spencer and Stephanie Topping

Declared a personal interest in the item.

8 Report of the Executive – Corporate Financial Report

Councillor Taylor

Declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the item.

11 Crime and Disorder (Overview and Scrutiny) Regulations 2009 – Terms of Reference

Councillor Astbury Declared a personal interest in the item.

12 Membership of Helena Partnership Board

Councillors Crowther, Maloney and McCauley



12 Membership of Helena Partnership Board

Councillors Hennessy Declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the item.

13 Review of Executive Arrangements

Councillor Beirne Indicated that he would leave the meeting during consideration of this item.

15 Gambling Act 2005 - 3 Year Review of Statement of Principles

Councillor Roberts Declared a personal interest in the item.

18 To consider Notices of Motion submitted in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 12 – Motion 3

Councillors Bowden and Roberts


44. THE MAYOR'S COMMUNICATIONS The Mayor reported that approximately £2,000 had been raised at the Mayor’s Ball held in October. He thanked everyone involved.

45. TO HEAR AND RESPOND TO ANY QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH COUNCIL PROCEDURE RULE 9 The Mayor reported that twelve questions had been submitted in accordance with this Procedure Rule. Question 1 The Mayor invited Councillor Pearson to ask the first question. “Other than through the Council's website, how are members of the public made aware of the requirement to notify the Local Authority before entering into a private fostering arrangement? Does the Council routinely publish advice and information on private fostering in the local media and Council publications?” The Mayor then invited Councillor Evans to respond. “Thank you Councillor Pearson and in response to the first part of your question, I would make the following response: The Council employs a range of approaches to ensure both members of the public and a wide range of professionals within and outside the Council are aware of private fostering. A Council leaflet has been available, regularly updated, since 2005, which is widely distributed, together with a British Association Adoption of Fostering (BAAF) leaflet. It is currently made available to:


• All schools • The PCT

• All GP surgeries

• All Dental Practices • Social Work assessment teams

• Libraries • Sure Start Centres

• Independent Fostering Agencies and also Housing Benefits, Police and Court settings.

In addition, specific training on private fostering has been given to a wide range of Council staff, all Head Teachers, social work professionals and those involved in children’s services. The Service Manager with responsibility for Fostering has also attended meetings of the Local Safeguarding Children Board to ensure all relevant partners are aware and a report went to the Local Safeguarding Children Board. There are also information leaflets in the reception area in Atlas House about Private Fostering and in public buildings as above. Details about Private Fostering are promoted at the St Helens Festival. An Annual Report and Statement of Purpose are produced and placed on the Council website. In response to the second part of your question. Advertisements have been placed on a regular basis in the local press, usually two or three times a year. This year an advertisement was placed in the local press in June, and a further advertisement will be placed in November. I think a lot of you have seen the format. Full page features are also scheduled for Council at Work and St Helens First for the January 2010 edition. Preparations are also being made with Wigan Council to run joint radio advertisements during 2010.” The Mayor then asked Councillor Pearson if he had a supplementary question. Neither Councillor Pearson nor any other Member asked a supplementary question. Question 2 The Mayor then invited Councillor Maloney to ask the second question. “Will the Executive Member for Adult Social Care and Health clarify the following issue relating to the 28 hour cap placed on care packages? Is it the policy of the Council to require service users to sign a statement agreeing to, and accepting the 28 hour limit before they receive a service, and if this is the case, when was the policy agreed by Council?” The Mayor then invited Councillor Knight to respond. “Thank you for your question, as I previously stated as all Members are aware there is no such Council Policy.” The Mayor then asked Councillor Maloney if she had a supplementary question and Councillor Maloney asked the following question:


“I have information that the 28 hour cap was procedure. Will the Executive Member make Council aware of the outcomes following an Internal Audit to be carried out?” Councillor Knight responded as follows: “I stress again there is no such policy. I did receive some evidence six weeks after Council after asking twice for it.” Councillor Rimmer then asked the following second supplementary question: “Is the Executive Member not concerned a practice has been going on in this Council which is not Council Policy.” Councillor Knight responded as follows: “There are people receiving 24 hour social care, 7 days a week, and some people require higher staff ratios e.g. 2 to 1. There are a tremendous number of people receiving over 28 hours social care. There will be an Internal Audit of Care Management and the results will go to the appropriate Scrutiny Committee. I repeat there is no such Policy.”

Question 3 The Mayor then invited Councillor Grunewald to ask the third question. “Can the Executive Member responsible for Community Safety/Environmental Protection please inform Council what the results were of the pilot scheme which “banned cold calling” in some areas of St Helens?” The Mayor then invited Councillor Kavanagh to respond. “Thank you for your question Councillor Grunewald. I need to make you aware Cold Calling cannot be banned. All we can do is deter. This was a Pilot Scheme and the review of this pilot area will be undertaken by the end of the calendar year and will made available to all Members.” The Mayor then asked Councillor Grunewald if he had a supplementary question. Neither Councillor Grunewald nor any other Member asked a supplementary question.

Question 4 The Mayor then invited Councillor Beirne to ask the fourth question. “Could the Portfolio Member please inform us what progress has been made in the provision of extra care housing in the Borough and are there any future developments proposed?” The Mayor then invited Councillor Knight to respond. “Thank you for your question. I am pleased to say that extra care housing continues to progress across the Borough, and is a key feature of our prevention and early intervention strategies.


There are two well established existing schemes: Reeve Court, Rainhill - 206 properties, mixed tenure a partnership between Arena and the Council. Portland House, is a specialist dementia facility with 8 x1 bedroom flats for rent. Parr Mount Court is now fully refurbished at a cost of £3 million [paid for by Helena Housing] and we offer both 30 extra-care flats there plus 3 short stay flats which support hospital discharge, and older people who become homeless etc. This helps older people avoid institutional care placements. Heyeswood, which opened in Haydock in August this year, has 92 apartments. These are a mixture of 1 and 2 bed flats. The scheme is a mixed tenure and is a partnership between Arena Options, Sue Ryder Care and the Council. Heald Farm Court opened in Newton in October and has 87 x 2 bedroom apartments, with a choice of 9 different flat types. This is a partnership between Helena Partnerships, MHA Care Group and the Council, both facilities are first class. In the pipeline is Berwyn Grove which will have Portland 2 special dementia facility, 15 flats mixed tenure, 12 rented and 3 for sale, developed by Villages Housing who own Portland 1 and some bungalows and 3 bedroom properties developed by Helena Partnerships and these will be aimed at any user group, from older parent carers for people with learning disabilities, to families with children who have disabilities. This is an exciting development as it is a partnership between 2 Social Landlords and the Council. Plans should be submitted in the next few weeks. Plans have also been developed for a scheme offering a further 40 properties in the Thatto Heath area by Oakbridge retirement villages (formerly HikaLife). Unfortunately the financing of this scheme has been affected by the economic climate and the developers are not able to progress at present. Officers will continue to work in partnership with the potential providers. There is a firm commitment. It all equates to 421 units now and 275 in the pipeline.” The Mayor then asked Councillor Beirne if he had a supplementary question and Councillor Beirne asked the following question: “There is a lot going on with Extra Care Housing – any specific developments for young adults?” Councillor Knight responded as follows: “Planning permission is being sought for a development at Sorogold Street which will create 17 flats for people with a physical and sensory disability and 10 for people with a learning disability. Priority for new tenancies will be given to those people presently residing at Mulcrow Close. ” Councillor Pearson then asked the following second supplementary question: “In view of the Personalisation agenda do you anticipate extra demand for extra care housing and is the current capacity sufficient to meet the demand?” Councillor Knight responded as follows:


“We will have to suck it and see. There is a huge amount of extra care housing for people with learning, physical and sensory disability and wide ranging in the Borough, so yes I hope it will be enough and further things are in the pipeline. We will have to wait and see. There is also help for those who cannot sell their properties so schemes continue to be viable.” Question 5 The Mayor then invited Councillor Beirne to ask the fifth question. “Could the Leader of the Council please give Council an update on the Local Enterprise Growth Initiative and what impact it has had on the local economy?” The Mayor then invited Councillor Spencer to respond. “Since the launch of the Local Enterprise Growth Initiative (LEGI) in 2006, St Helens has made significant progress in terms of improving its economy, developing as an enterprise hub and becoming a location of choice for investors, businesses and visitors. The fact that LEGI continues to provide a unique opportunity to fast-track the St Helens economy onto an even competitive footing with the rest of the UK is borne out by the impressive headline results achieved over the past 3 years of the programme – over 3,000 unemployed people helped back to work, over 2,000 new jobs created and 1,000 new businesses formed. Despite the economic downturn, St Helens has also seen the completion of a number of important physical regeneration schemes during the last 12 months or so. These include:

• The new Chamber HQ and Enterprise Greenhouse

• Mere Grange Business Park Phase 1 and Micklehead Business Village

• The refurbished and enhanced St Helens Hospital and do not forget we also have the new hospital at Newton

• Phase 1 of the new St Helens College Town Centre Campus

• The landmark sculpture Dream by world renowned artist Jaume Plensa.

• The new Beacon building and our own Atlas House.

• Progress is well under way for the new Saints Stadium. 2008 equally saw the production and launch of a new City Growth Strategy – the business plan for the growth of ‘St.Helens plc’ – that includes 90 projects with a collective value of more than £1.8bn. This comprehensively revised 10 year strategy has been produced only 5 years after the original CGS was launched because the vast majority of the 70 previously identified projects had been implemented or were well on their way to being delivered. There have been some impressive initiatives delivered under the LEGI programme including :-

• Business Winning Business. This project helps local businesses win business locally as well as outside the area. Year 3 results include £33 million additional business placed with St Helens companies.


• 85 companies prepared for ISO applications or industry specific accreditations

• 62 companies supported to take up broadband connectivity.

• 22 companies receiving software and associated training The Streetwalkers project which has helped 1,162 businesses in the Borough with practical support and assistance in solving problems and dealing with bureaucratic issues. There are a number of other projects which are helping St Helens lead the way on Merseyside and help close the gap with the rest of the Country. Meanwhile, our commitment to generating, delivering and maximising economic benefits for the Borough has been objectively recognised in two important ways. Firstly, with the Council retaining its top-rated four-star accreditation from the Audit Commission. Secondly by being awarded national Beacon Council Status in two separate categories: Delivering Economic Prosperity through Partnership, and Building Homes for the Future. The new business and employment growth generated via LEGI will continue to directly contribute to accelerating economic development across the Borough and is a testament to the main factors that won us the LEGI award in the first place. My thanks go out to the St Helens Chamber who are an invaluable partner in helping St Helens grow and prosper even in these difficult times.” The Mayor then asked Councillor Beirne if he had a supplementary question and Councillor Beirne asked the following question: “What help is being given to the young unemployed and school leavers in the Borough?” Councillor Spencer responded as follows: “Thank you. There are problems in St Helens and I am pleased to announce improvements in the last few months with regard to NEET figures. We have launched the apprenticeship programme and also the Graduate recruitment programme. We now have over a 100 young people working for the Council in various roles receiving NVQ training and invaluable work experience. Also we have started with the Chamber to find work placements for 40 Graduates both in the private and public sector which again gives valuable work experience and the possibility of secure employment. They also run a programme with schools to help young people understand work, enterprise and entrepreneurship, and see their future in that context, especially those young people for whom work and enterprise are just not part of their experience.” Councillor Bowden then asked the following second supplementary question: “It is an impressive list of achievements. Will the Leader acknowledge and thank the Government for introducing LEGI?” Councillor Spencer responded as follows: “I would like to thank officers for winning the programme in 2004. St Helens was the only area which is not a City which got the City Strategy. I would thank the Government for 2004, but not for what they have done to the economy in 2009.”


Question 6 The Mayor then invited Councillor Beirne to ask the sixth question. “Following Consultation with local residents and the Town Centre Councillors, could the Portfolio Member please inform Council of what ‘positive changes’ are taking place in the area behind the Town Hall which will benefit residents parking and how soon will the improvements be implemented?” The Mayor then invited Councillor Kavanagh to respond. “Thank you for your question Councillor Beirne. I am able to report that a number of new services have already been introduced.

Firstly, introduction of Visitors Permits.

Two types of visitor permit are now available for residents:

i) A ‘hanger’ type (one per household) which enables residents’ visitors to park for

periods of 4 hours in the residents bays, and

ii) Scratch cards, which can be used when workmen, etc, are visiting. They are

best used for short notice situations. These cards are provided in blocks of 12 per household, and are free of charge for the first issue per year. A great idea and traffic section have done a good job.

So far, 370 hanger-type permits have been collected by residents, together with 355 sets of scratch card permits (out of a total of approximately 850 households in the Residents Parking area). Secondly, provision of additional bays for residents and their visitors to park in has taken place. To accommodate the new visitor permits another 150 additional bays have been provided. This raises the number of spaces from 490 to 640 – (an increase of over 30%). This has been done by converting some short-stay bays to residents’ bays, and by removing 500 metres of single and double yellow lines. The legal process for this was completed in October and the changes to the carriageway markings and road signs have now been made. Also, to help residents, the use of Council car parks has been provided (using Clifton Street and Central Street). This has provided an overspill area for parking, prior to the increase in residents’ parking bays. Assistance to the two schools in the Hardshaw Area has been agreed with them, and provides additional short stay parking bays on Cansfield Street. This will help with the drop off, and pick up, of pupils. The area of Residents Parking has been extended to include Gleave Street and Central Street. Additional bays have been provided, they now also enjoy the benefit of visitors’ permits.


Disabled Parking has been improved and there are now more spaces in this area for Blue Badge Holders to use for 3 hour parking. Pay and Display bays can also be used by blue badge holders. In all of this, residents have been at the heart of all these changes. We wanted to do what was best for that area. Letters were hand delivered to all properties in the area and a two day public consultation event held in the Town Hall at the end of June 2009. The Council is receiving positive comments from the residents who appreciate the new services. In fact, word is spreading, and other Residents’ Parking schemes within the Town would also like visitors’ permits too. I hope this gives a flavour of the improvements in the Town Centre parking for residents, for their visitors, for their workmen when they have emergencies and businesses.” The Mayor then asked Councillor Beirne if he had a supplementary question and Councillor Beirne asked the following question: “Are there any complaints at present?” Councillor Kavanagh responded as follows: “There are a handful of current complaints, but the changes implemented have actually solved them. It is important to note that the numbers of complaints from residents at the back of the Town Hall about parking has been very low. The issue has been given a high profile by the press, often printed inaccurately, and because of this, I have regularly asked our Traffic Section about the types and numbers of complaints. Typically, each month we receive only a couple of complaints. In fact, probably less than we received last year. I hope I have answered your question adequately. If you do require details of these complaints I could provide them to you.” There was no second supplementary question asked.

Question 7 The Mayor then invited Councillor Beirne to ask the seventh question. “Could the Leader of the Council please inform me of what support has been given to the Shop-Local Campaign by the two St Helens MPs?” The Mayor then invited Councillor Spencer to respond. “Thank you for your question. The Be Local Buy Local Campaign was an initiative started by the former Mayor, yourself, and supported by the present Mayor, and was successfully launched in May 2009. A number of high profile initiatives from the Council and Chamber have been organised to encourage people to support local businesses across the Borough and help retain jobs.


Over 150 businesses have signed up to the programme, including some of the areas largest employers eg, Knauf Insulation and Arriva. The ‘Be Local’ initiative has been managed successfully by the Council and its partners, gaining lots of media attention to promote and maintain the campaign. To date, there has been no direct involvement in the campaign from the two St Helens MPs.” The Mayor then asked Councillor Beirne if he had a supplementary question and Councillor Beirne asked the following question: “Despite the lack of support of local MPs, can you reaffirm the Council’s support?” Councillor Spencer responded as follows: “Of course we will maintain commitment, through the recession and beyond. St Helens is presently riding out the recession better than most in the North West. We will support businesses in town and in outlining areas.” Councillor Grunewald then asked the following second supplementary question: “MPs support local businesses on a daily basis. Are you concerned that the Chamber is holding their Annual Dinner out of the Borough?” Councillor Spencer replied as follows: “I would have preferred it to be held in St Helens, but the decision was made by the Chamber. It did not get my support. The venue is part of the Chamber.”

Question 8 The Mayor then invited Councillor Beirne to ask the eighth question. “Could the Portfolio Member please inform Council of the improvements made to the provision of services to the Youth in the Borough in the last two years?” The Mayor then invited Councillor Sims to respond. “Thank you for your question. My answer focuses primarily on St. Helens Youth Service but I will also cover its work with other services for young people. The effectiveness of our Youth Service is determined according to a number of key measures. These are measures of young people it contacts, the ongoing participation of those young people and their achievements with the service. I am pleased to report that over the past 2 years significant improvements have been achieved in these areas specifically:

• The service is now reaching 36% of its target 13-19 population compared with 25% 2 years ago;


• The proportion of young people achieving a recorded or accredited outcome has grown significantly;

• The number of young people involved as volunteers has grown from 400 to

over 720;

• The Summer activities programme has continued to grow, with this year the biggest ever; and

• The number of young people achieving the Duke of Edinburgh Award has grown

to over 550 making our programme the best in the North West Region. Delivery sessions for young people have grown from just over 30 per week to over 90 currently, with a greater proportion delivered at weekends and evenings - a trend which will continue. An extensive programme of work with partners such as Connexions, the Citadel, Helena Partnerships and the Fire Service has also increased the range of structured activities available to young people, including the Prince’s Trust, Arts and Street Cage Soccer programmes. A Junior Democracy week has now been added to our Citizenship programme and the number of local candidates standing for the UK Youth Parliament has risen from 14 to 32 candidates this year, with the number of votes cast increasing to over 3,400. An extensive programme of staff development has also been completed over the past 2 years to support multi agency work with young people on drugs and alcohol, teenage pregnancy and sexual health issues. I do hope I have given you an idea of the main developments that have taken place over the past 2 years. However, if you require any further information or more detail on the above, please let me know and I will endeavour to provide this in writing.“ The Mayor then asked Councillor Beirne if he had a supplementary question and Councillor Beirne asked the following question: “Can you please inform the Council as to the extent of the involvement of Young People in moving the Youth Service forward?” Councillor Sims responded as follows: “Consultation with young people has been a continuing feature of the development programme for the service since the Best Value Review in 2006. The Junior Democracy programme involves thousands of young people across the borough but perhaps I could also point to a couple of recent examples, showing how we are using consultation to shape service provision. During the summer we ran an extensive consultation exercise under the title “A Better Mix” with the aim of improving opportunities for girls. This identified a need for some ‘girls only’ provision and a move away from male dominated activities. In response, dedicated provision for young women has now commenced at Derbyshire Hill Youth Club and will be extended elsewhere shortly.


Another recent example was the consultation programme underpinning the reopening of Derbyshire Hill. This involved an extensive programme of outreach work, a number of workshops and an Open Day on 26 September, attended by over 220 young people and 42 adults. The clear evidence from this event was that young people want structured activities rather than open provision and that has formed the basis of the programme now underway. I hope these examples have given you an assurance that consultation with young people and the wider community is at the heart of the Youth Service offer.” Councillor Smith then asked the following second supplementary question: “I acknowledge the positives and Junior Democratic Week was good. In the reorganisation some management posts have been disestablished. Are the cost savings to be recycled or put back into Youth Services?” Councillor Sims responded as follows: “The consultation period ended on 28 October 2009 and there are now posts of Positive Activities Managers to further increase support. Savings will be reinvested into the Youth Service.”

Question 9 The Mayor then invited Councillor Bowden to ask the ninth question. “Since the removal of the interim planning policy on 16 April 2008, have the policies referred to in the report to the Executive on the 2 April to safeguard employment land and the character and amenity of areas been introduced?” The Mayor then invited Councillor Ferry to respond. “The Council previously had in force an Interim Planning Policy to constrain the release of land for housing due a situation of oversupply in the number of outstanding planning permissions. The new RSS (which was nearing adoption at the time) provided a higher housing figure than that in the previous RSS therefore negating the need for the Interim Policy. Furthermore, Planning Policy Statement 3 also now required the Council to identify specific deliverable sites for a five-year period and developable sites for a 10-year period to meet the emerging RSS need. A report was therefore sent to Executive and Full Council to authorise the formal withdrawal of the Interim Policy. The purpose of the interim policy was to constrain housing development. Secondary implications of it were that the criteria in the Interim Policy sought to protect employment land from redevelopment for residential purposes and that infill development would be restricted. In the report to Executive these two issues were raised and methods of dealing with these problems were identified including:

• a further Interim Policy on employment land protection

• use of existing GEN1 policy in the UDP to control infill


• the commencement of work looking at identifying residential character areas The question is related to the implementation of these identified actions. With regards to employment land protection it was acknowledged that if we were to protect employment land then we needed good evidence to support such a policy line. Existing evidence at the time was based on employment land take up trends for previous years, which, whilst useful, is not as robust as it could be. Regeneris Consultants were therefore appointed to produce a study looking at the Borough’s future employment land supply needs. This study was completed in April 2009 in time to support the inclusion of an employment land protection policy in the forthcoming Core Strategy. Given the advanced stage of preparation of the Core Strategy it was not felt necessary to introduce an Interim Planning Policy as it was anticipated that the Core Strategy would be adopted in early 2010. Equally, Government are encouraging Councils that they should not be producing Interim Planning Policy now as it would carry very little status. We are now in a position whereby the Core Strategy is delayed so we are using the evidence base provided by Regeneris to support decisions made on loss of employment land and cross referring this to national and regional policy. In terms of safeguarding the character and amenity of areas there exists already strong policy in the adopted UDP in the form of policy GEN1 which is also now supplemented by a Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (SPD). A further SPD is now in a draft stage which identifies and provides policy criteria for areas of special residential character. This is due to reach a public consultation stage in February 2010 and be adopted in summer 2010. This SPD, once adopted, will provide additional weight to our existing policy. In the background to the issue the economic recession must also be highlighted. This has particularly affected the housing market such that employment sites are not under as much pressure for housing development as they previously were. Similarly infill residential development has also been affected by the recession. There has been a marked reduction in the submission of residential planning applications in general.” The Mayor then asked Councillor Bowden if he had a supplementary question and Councillor Bowden asked the following question: “Are you confident we have progressed as quickly as we can?” Councillor Ferry responded as follows: “Yes.” There was no second supplementary question asked.

Question 10 The Mayor then invited Councillor Bowden to ask the tenth question. “As members of the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority representing the people of St Helens what actions are you taking to help resolve the current dispute?” The Mayor then invited Councillors Lowe and Roughley to respond. Councillor Lowe responded as follows:


“The Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority, are committed to finding a speedy solution to the current dispute through ongoing negotiation with trade unions. The matter under dispute has also been referred to the National Joint Secretaries where a meeting has been arranged for 5 and 6 November with a view to resolving this dispute.“ The Mayor then asked Councillor Bowden if he had a supplementary question and Councillor Bowden asked the following question: “Do you think the recent letter in the local paper helped or hindered this?” Councillor Roughley responded as follows: “It would be inappropriate to make any further comments until the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority issue a statement following the meeting of the National Joint Secretaries later this week.” Councillor Maloney then asked the following second supplementary question: “After the 2006 strike action there was an industrial relations review set up. I worked alongside officials and a lot of hard work was undertaken. Do you think to make a comment in the press is putting all that hard work at risk?” Councillor Roughley replied as follows: “It would be inappropriate to comment.”

Question 11 The Mayor then invited Councillor Hargreaves to ask the eleventh question. “Please advise Council of the Consultants reports forecast used for Decriminalised Parking expenditure and income levels that were incorporated into the Budget for 2008/09?” The Mayor then invited Councillor Spencer to respond. “The car parking consultant who assisted the Council since 2005 in preparing for the introduction of Civil Parking Enforcement did not produce any form of expenditure and income forecast relating to any particular financial year for the purpose of budget preparation.“ The Mayor then asked Councillor Hargreaves if he had a supplementary question and Councillor Hargreaves asked the following question: “Has this achievement as a result of the consultant’s report been successful?” Councillor Spencer responded as follows: “In terms of the consultants report, success is evident to see across the Borough. It is easier to access St Helens and cheaper to park. What is probably alluded to is the amount of tickets given out. The amount of tickets issued is due to the fact that the consultant under estimated the honesty of people in the Town.”


Councillor Beirne then asked the following second supplementary question: “In 2005 the decision to introduce this was made. Can you provide me with a list of the Executive Members who made the decision?” Councillor Spencer replied as follows: “Yes, I will get you the information. There were seven of them and Councillor Rimmer was the Leader.”

Question 12 The Mayor then invited Councillor Rimmer to ask the twelfth question. “Please advise Council of the Consultants reports forecast used for Decriminalised Parking expenditure and income levels that were incorporated into the Budget for 2009/10?” The Mayor then invited Councillor Spencer to respond. “The answer is the same as just given to Councillor Hargreaves.“ The Mayor then asked Councillor Rimmer if she had a supplementary question and Councillor Rimmer asked the following question: “Is the Council Leader relieved he did not use the forecast income levels in the report of 18 July 2007?” Councillor Spencer responded as follows: “I am relieved we have a car parking scheme which benefits people in St Helens. People in St Helens do tend to park legally - we will produce a budget in line with that. We provide access to able and unable bodies.” Councillor Grunewald then asked the following second supplementary question: “Can you confirm the Labour proposal in 2005 was very different to what we have now?” Councillor Spencer replied as follows: “The scheme itself is the same. It would have been implemented whoever was in control. The number of operatives in 2005 was against Government guidelines. The scheme has to be equitable. If the scheme had gone ahead in 2005, they said it was ok to park illegally in some parts of the Borough. We employed less operatives than recommended by the consultant.”

46. TO HEAR AND RESPOND TO ANY QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC IN ACCORDANCE WITH COUNCIL PROCEDURE RULE 10 The Mayor reported that no questions had been submitted in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 10.


47. TO HEAR ANY DEPUTATIONS BY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC IN ACCORDANCE WITH COUNCIL PROCEDURE RULE 11 The Mayor reported that no requests to hear a deputation had been received in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 11.

Councillor Taylor here left the meeting.

48. REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE - CORPORATE FINANCIAL REPORT A report was submitted which informed Council that the Executive at its meeting held on 16 September 2009, considered the Corporate Financial Report and recommended certain matters to Council for approval. A copy of the report to the Executive was attached at Appendix 1. **** Resolved that:

(1) approve the latest Capital Programme as shown at Annex A; (2) approve the revised General Fund Budget for 2009/2010 (Annex B)

including the changes in respect of ABG schemes as detailed in the report;

(3) note the Treasury Review and the latest Efficiency Plan; and (4) note the latest capital receipts and reserves and balances position.

Councillor Taylor here returned to the meeting.

49. DECISION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE, IN CONSULTATION WITH THE THREE

GROUP LEADERS, MADE UNDER DELEGATED POWERS A report was submitted on a Decision taken by the Chief Executive in consultation with the three Group Leaders made under Delegated Powers with regard to the Representatives on Outside Bodies 2009/2010. **** Resolved that the Decision of the Chief Executive, in consultation with the

three Group Leaders made under Delegated Powers, to the revised representation on Outside Bodies List for 2009/2010 be noted.

50. OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY ANNUAL REPORT 2008/09

A report was submitted which informed Council that in Accordance with the Council’s Constitution, the Overview and Scrutiny Commission were required to produce an Annual Report for Council on its work and that of its Committees. **** Resolved that the Overview and Scrutiny Annual Report 2008/2009 be noted.


51. CRIME AND DISORDER (OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY) REGULATIONS 2009 - TERMS OF REFERENCE A report was submitted which sought approval to the amendment to the Terms of Reference of the Environment and Safer Communities Overview and Scrutiny Committee following the introduction of the Crime and Disorder (Overview and Scrutiny) Regulations 2009 (“the regulations”) and the amendment and introduction of provisions contained in the Police and Justice Act 2006 (“the Act”). The Act and the regulations contained provisions which required the Council to have a Committee which carried out the role of a Crime and Disorder Overview and Scrutiny Committee and in doing so had the power to review or scrutinise decisions made or other action taken by the Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership (CDRP) and the partners who comprise it insofar as their activities relate to the partnership itself. It was expected that the Committee would act as a critical friend to the CDRP, that it would consider action undertaken by the responsible authorities on the CDRP and, where appropriate, it would make reports or recommendations to the Council regarding the CDRP. In anticipation of these provisions being brought into force, the Council had previously provided in the Constitution for the terms of reference of the Environment and Safer Communities Overview and Scrutiny Committee to include the following responsibility:

“To scrutinise the performance of the CDRP in accordance with the Police and Justice Act 2006.”

The recent amendment of the Act and the introduction of the regulations meant it was appropriate to review the terms of reference to provide for the wider responsibilities. **** Resolved that the following Terms of Reference be approved for inclusion in

the Constitution.

To be designated as the responsible Committee for review and scrutiny of Crime and Disorder issues, pursuant to the Police and Justice Act 2006, and in this context:

(i) to review and scrutinise decisions made or action taken by the Crime

and Disorder Reduction Partnership and the responsible authorities which comprise it insofar as their activities relate to the partnership itself;

(ii) to make reports or recommendations to Council with respect to the

discharge of Crime and Disorder functions; (iii) to consider any local Crime and Disorder matter which is referred to it

by any Member of the Council; (iv) to operate in accordance with the powers contained in the Crime and

Disorder (Overview and Scrutiny) Regulations 2009 with regard to co-opting of Members, frequency of meetings, obtaining information, requiring attendance at meetings and making reports and recommendations.


Councillor Hennessy here left the meeting.

52. MEMBERSHIP OF HELENA PARTNERSHIP BOARD At its meeting held on 2 September 2009, Council considered a report on the Membership of Helena Partnership Board. Helena Partnership had approached the Council with a proposal to amend the size of the Partnerships’ Board, which involved a reduction in the number of Council representatives, from four to two. The Council referred consideration of this proposal to the Overview and Scrutiny Commission, who subsequently referred it to a Task and Finish Group of the Regeneration, Housing, Culture and Leisure Scrutiny Committee. The Task and Finish Group met on 15 October 2009 and the Commission considered the findings at their meeting held on 22 October 2009. Councillor Rimmer moved and Councillor Stephanie topping seconded the recommendations of the Overview and Scrutiny Commission which were: (i) the proposals to reduce the number of Council Directors on the Helena Partnership

Board from four to two be not agreed; (ii) discussions be held as soon as possible with Helena to facilitate an open debate as

to the future direction and relationship between Helena Partnership and the Council; (iii) the production of an annual report to be submitted to Council and the appropriate

Overview and Scrutiny Committee and the offer of increased involvement in Scrutiny Task and Finish Groups be welcomed as additional complement to the Scrutiny process already in place.

Councillor Spencer moved and Councillor Knight seconded an amendment that the following words be added to the end of (i): ‘at this stage’ This amendment was accepted. **** Resolved that the recommendations of the Overview and Scrutiny

Commission be agreed subject to the addition of the words, ‘at this stage’ to the end of recommendation (i).

Councillor Hennessy here returned to the meeting. Councillor Beirne here left the meeting.

53. NEW EXECUTIVE ARRANGEMENTS

A report was presented which informed Council of the outcome of the initial consultation process in relation to new Executive arrangements, and requested Council to determine its draft proposals for publication. At its meeting held on 2 September 2009, Council received a report explaining the requirements of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007, in relation to reviewing its governance arrangements and agreed a consultation process and the formal timetable for the process of changing the form of Executive.


By 31 December 2009, the Council was required to reach a decision as to the new form of Executive and to adopt either: (i) a “new style” Leader and Cabinet form of Executive; or (ii) a directly-elected Mayor and Cabinet form of Executive. No change was not an option. If no decision was made, the Leader and Cabinet model would be imposed by default. The draft proposals would be considered at a meeting of Council specifically convened for this purpose. **** Resolved that:

(1) the Option referred to in the report as Option A, namely the ‘new style’ Leader and Cabinet form of Executive, form the basis Council’s draft proposals together with the following additional draft proposals:

(i) that the Council should have the power to remove the

Leader by a simple majority during his/her term of office, as currently provided for by Article 6 of the Constitution;

(ii) that the responsibility for “local choice” functions remain

as set out in the Constitution; (iii) that the change in governance arrangements be not

subject to a referendum; and (2) the Assistant Chief Executive (Legal and Administrative Services) be

authorised to publish the draft proposals in accordance with statutory requirements.

Councillor Beirne here returned to the meeting.

54. REVIEW OF ELECTION EXPENSES A report was submitted which sought approval to increase the scale of the Returning Officer’s fees and disbursements for 2010/2011. Section 36 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 provided that the District Council should pay all the expenditure properly incurred by a Returning Officer, in relation to the holding of District Elections. This Section also gave the Council power to fix a scale of expenditure for these purposes. The election fees for 2009/2010 were approved by Council at its meeting in November 2008. The GDP deflator indicated that general inflation in the domestic economy for the period since the last review was 2.5%. The proposal was to increase the fees by 2.5% rounded to the nearest pound, the costs of which could be met from existing resources in order to assist in recruitment and retention of staff to work on the elections.


**** Resolved that the revised scale of election fees shown in the Appendix, for 2010/2011, be agreed.

55. GAMBLING ACT POLICY

A report was submitted which sought the Council’s approval of the Council’s revised Statement of Policy (previously called ‘Statement of Principles’) following the 3 year review pursuant to the Gambling Act 2005. The Gambling Act 2005 introduced a new licensing regime for various forms of betting and gaming creating 3 types of licences: - Operating and Personal licenses - issued by the new Gambling Commission. - Premises licenses - issued by the Council as Licensing Authority. Premises licenses were required in order to provide facilities for gambling at a particular venue. As well as dealing with such applications the Council, as the licensing authority, would have responsibility for: - Publishing a three-year Statement of Policy; - Maintaining a register of premises licensed in the area; and - Monitoring and inspection of gambling premises. In St. Helens, the Council dealt with approximately 450 licence holders under the Gambling Act. The licensing authority also had the ability to resolve not to permit any, or any more, casino premises and review premises licenses and impose sanctions by way of suspension or revocation of the licence. In dealing with applications the licensing authority had to consult the responsible authorities identified in the Act and take account of any representations received. Licenses should be issued if the application is compliant with: - The licensing objectives; - Gambling Commission Guidance; - Gambling Commission Code of Practice; and - The Licensing Authority Statement of Policy. The licensing objectives were: - Preventing gambling from being a source of crime or disorder, being associated

with crime or disorder or being used to support crime; - Ensuring that gambling is conducted in a fair and open way; and - Protecting children and other vulnerable persons from being harmed or exploited

by gambling.


**** Resolved that the proposed revised Gambling Act Statement of Policy be approved.

56. PLANNING PROTOCOL

A report was submitted which requested the Council to approve the revised draft of the Council’s “Protocol for Councillors and Officers dealing with Planning Matters.” The current protocol had been in operation for many years, referring as it does to the previous Code of Conduct for Members, “the National Code of Local Government Conduct”. Given the passage of time, parts of the current protocol were no longer applicable, for example no account was taken of the right of elected Members to speak on an item in which they had a personal and prejudicial interest in circumstances where a member of the public would have the same rights to speak. It was also the case that the current protocol was regarded as unnecessarily restrictive in parts by some Members. The review of the current protocol produced a revised draft for consideration. This draft was provided by the Monitoring Officer to all elected Members to enable Members to submit their comments for consideration either to the Monitoring Officer or to the Chair of Planning Committee, who is also a member of the Standards Committee. It was then submitted to the Standards Committee on 5 October 2009 for consideration. Members of the Standards Committee raised several issues of concern in relation to the draft and officers were requested to produce options in relation to certain provisions for further consideration. A further report was submitted to the Standards Committee on 26 October 2009, with options put forward to deal with the concerns raised by Members. Certain options were approved and the document attached to the report was the draft protocol as recommended by the Standards Committee for approval. **** Resolved that the draft protocol attached to the report be approved.

57. REQUEST TO APPROVE ABSENCE A report was submitted which requested Council to consider a request by Councillor Ward to approve his absence from meetings of the Authority. Councillor Ward had been absent from meetings of the Authority since July 2009, due to ill health. The Local Government Act 1972 provided that, if a Member failed to attend a meeting of the Authority throughout a period of six consecutive months from the dates of his/her last attendance, the member should cease to be a member of the Authority unless the Council approve the reason for the absence, before the expiration of the six month period. **** Resolved that Councillor Ward’s absence from meetings of the Authority

be approved.

58. TO CONSIDER NOTICES OF MOTION SUBMITTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH COUNCIL PROCEDURE RULE 12. 1) The following Notice of Motion was moved by Councillor Spencer and seconded by

Councillor Knight.


This Council welcomes the contribution St. Helens Canal Restoration Society makes to preserving and maintaining an important aspect of our Borough’s industrial heritage. Recognises the need to continue the strong working relationship with SCARS particularly in any development affecting the future potential of the canal. Therefore this Council:

(i) Calls upon the Government to support the restoration of the canal and make funds available to carry out the necessary work.

(ii) Instructs the Chief Executive to write to the North West Development

Agency seeking support for the restoration of the canal. (iii) Instructs the Leader to write to the neighbouring authorities of Halton

and Warrington with a view to establishing a common approach in the restoration of the canal.

Councillor Bowden moved the following amendment to the Motion, which was seconded by Councillor Roberts. (i) to insert ‘and other agencies’ after “Government”; and

(ii) insert ‘and other funding bodies’ after “North West Development

Agency”.

The amendment to the Motion was accepted by the proposer of the Motion The amendment therefore became the substantive Motion.

**** Resolved that the Motion as amended be approved. Councillors N Ashcroft, W Ashcroft and Roughley declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the following item and in accordance with the Code of Conduct here left the meeting. 2) The following Notice of Motion was moved by Councillor Ayres and seconded by

Councillor Rimmer.

This Council is supportive of a City Region Landlord Accreditation Scheme and recognises the very serious negative impact on some of our families and communities brought about by speculative and unprofessional landlords and the growing number of individual property owners putting their property on rent, many of whom show little if any long term interest in the community they invest in, and show minimal interest in managing their properties properly often letting to anti-social tenants. Council appreciates the combined time and effort of the Council’s Private Sector Housing Officer and Police in combating these situations and calls for serious and urgent consideration of the use of Selective Licensing provided for in Part 3 of the Housing Act 2004 (provisions came into force April 2006) in some areas, Council therefore calls for a report by Urban Regeneration and Housing which demonstrates how:


• the use of this measure will improve the social and/or economic conditions

• the use of the measure will be consistent with the overall housing strategy

• the measure will be coordinated with existing policies dealing with homelessness and empty homes and other anti social behaviour initiatives of affected areas identified by the Council and Police and submits a scheme for confirmation by the Secretary of State.

Council recognises it may be necessary and more appropriate in some areas to use Special Interim Management Orders provided for in the act and calls for the report to include the criteria for such use. Following a detailed debate, the motion was put to the vote. **** Resolved that the Motion be approved.

Councillors N Ashcroft, W Ashcroft and Roughley here returned to the meeting. 3) The following Notice of Motion was moved by Councillor Quinn and seconded by

Councillor Hargreaves.

This Council is opposed to the consideration by Merseytravel of a policy review which would allow the use of safe buses aged 15 years or over to ferry pupils to school.

Councillor Spencer moved the following amendment to the Motion which was seconded by Councillor Knight.

This Council is opposed to the consideration by Merseytravel of a policy review which would allow the use of buses aged 15 years or over to ferry pupils to school, unless: i) catalytic converters are fitted on all such buses and subject to

Merseytravel engineers; and ii) all buses are subject to inspection by Merseytravel engineers and not just

a random selection of these buses.

Following a detailed debate, the amendment was put to the vote. **** On a division the amended Motion was carried.

4) The following Notice of Motion was moved by Councillor Rimmer and seconded by Councillor Grunewald.

This Council calls for a review of the Decriminalised Parking Scheme that will remove the incurrence of any deficit. Following a detailed debate, the motion was put to the vote.

• On a division the Motion was defeated.


The Mayor informed Council of an urgent Motion which had been accepted in accordance with the Council’s Constitution 5) The following Notice of Motion was moved by Councillor Quinn and seconded by

Councillor Bowden

This Council commits to use all points of contact as a matter of urgency within this Borough, including Partner Organisations, e.g. LEA Schools, Sure Start Centres, NHS Baby Clinics, Council email (all) to ensure all families are alerted to the changes / entitlements in force from 2 November 2009 Re Housing Benefit / Council Tax which cannot be backdated, further than the claim date.

Whilst current recipients of either of these benefits should be assessed

automatically, many new claimants and former applicants assessed as ineligible would need to apply immediately to qualify for the maximum financial benefits available.

**** Resolved that the Motion be approved.

-oOo-

ST HELENS BOROUGH COUNCIL (Present) The Mayor (Councillor...

Documents

Transcript of ST HELENS BOROUGH COUNCIL (Present) The Mayor (Councillor...