Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Kendall, Ladhams and Slee.

To receive declarations of the existence and nature of any private interests, both disclosable pecuniary and any other registrable interests, in any matter to be considered or being considered.

The Deputy Chief Executive stated that he would leave the room for agenda item 13, as he had an interest in the subject matter.

The Director of Finance stated that he would leave the room for agenda item 13, as he had an interest in the subject matter.

Councillor Eyles gave a personal explanation in that he was recording the meeting.

RECOMMENDATION that the public minutes Cl/47/11/18 to Cl/59/11/18 of the meeting of Council held on 8 November 2018 be confirmed and signed by the Chairman as a correct record of those proceedings (copies previously circulated).

RESOLVED that the minutes Cl/47/11/18 to Cl/59/11/18 of the meeting of Council held on the 8 November 2018 be confirmed and signed by the Chairman as a correct record of those proceedings.

Welcome to the first full Council meeting of 2019 and Happy New Year everyone.

I would like to thank everyone who attend the Chairman’s Carol Service at St Andrews Church in Penrith on 17 Dec. The service was a great occasion with fantastic musical performances by local school pupils from QEGS, St Catherine’s and Kirkoswald Primary School and of course Penrith Town Band.

A collection at the concert raised over £450, which will be split between my chosen charities Hospice at Home, the Great North Air Ambulance and the Penrith Mountain Rescue Team.

The service was attended by the Lord-Lieutenant for Cumbria Claire Hensman, the High Sheriff of Cumbria Simon Berry, Cumbria’s Police and Crime Commissioner Peter McCall and civic representatives from Allerdale Borough Council, Barrow Borough Council, Carlisle City Council, Cumbria County Council, Keswick Town Council and Penrith Town Council.

I would like to thank the Reverend David Sargent, my fellow Councillor John Thompson and Council Officer Louise Biggs, and Charlotte Ferguson who all work so hard on my behalf to organise this service. Praise also goes to Greggs and Cranston’s who kindly provided refreshments and Eden FM for broadcasting the service over the Christmas period.

Eden District Council staff have been stepping up to the challenge during the past 12 months to help the Council attain a Bronze Better Health at Work Award.

The Council signed up to take part in the Better Health at Work Awards Scheme which in Cumbria is a partnership between Cumbria County Council and Northern Trades Union Congress (TUC).

The health and wellbeing needs of our staff is a priority and taking part in this awards scheme has been a great way to raise awareness and to help address health issues within the workplace.

The Bronze Award is fantastic recognition of everyone’s collective hard work and enthusiasm and is a great platform to build on. This work has the support of the Council’s Management Team and the next step will be to work towards the Silver Award.  

Over the last 12 months, nine Council staff have trained as health advocates providing valuable support to achieving and maintaining better health at work. This included a Health Needs Assessment survey with its 187 officers, which sought feedback on their Health needs and concerns.

To actively promote better health across the organisation the Council supported a step challenge where staff could compete in teams during the month of November. Chair yoga sessions also proved to be popular with staff and was backed up with Chairobics video sessions for those who couldn’t attend in person.

The most popular activity has been the Monthly Step Challenge which many staff enjoyed taking part in by forming different teams for some fun competition. It was won by a five person team for the Council’s Financial Services Department, who all received a small trophy for their collective efforts of 2,027,002 steps. With all the teams who entered amassing 11,353,925 steps in total! The next step challenge is already underway.

To receive questions from the public under Rule 10 of the Constitution.

No questions were received from members of the public under Rule 10 of the Constitution.

To receive questions from Members under Rule 12 of the Constitution.

The following questions were received from Members under Rule 12 of the Constitution.

1.            Councillor Eyles asked the following question of the Leader:

“Will the Leader or one of his Executive please explain why the accounts filed at Companies House for Heart of Cumbria Limited in December 2018 were those for its ‘parent company’, ie Eden District Council, and not for Heart of Cumbria Limited only?”

The Leader responded as follows:

“I am advised that the 2017-2018 accounts for the Company were filed by the due date with Companies House. As permitted under the Companies Act 2006, Council resolved in July 2018 to grant the Company an exemption from audited accounts for 2017-2018. The Act sets out that where an audit exemption has been granted for a subsidiary company, the parent’s audited accounts also need to be filed.”

Councillor Eyles then asked a supplementary question querying whether the Heart of Cumbria’s accounts could be put into a more accessible format.

The Leader responded that he would pass on the comments to the Directors of Heart of Cumbria.

2.            Councillor Eyles asked the following question of the Eden Development Portfolio Holder:

“Will the Penrith Masterplan be subject to a formal public consultation?”

The Eden Development Portfolio Holder responded as follows:

“The Penrith Masterplan in its original form was the subject of a public engagement exercise over an eight-week period between September and October last year. This masterplan itself will not be the subject of a formal public consultation. The results of the public engagement are intended to inform a review of the recently adopted Eden Local Plan and it is this review of the Eden Local Plan that will be the subject of a formal public consultation process possibly commencing in the latter part of this year.”

Councillor Eyles then asked a supplementary question querying whether the Executive considered that they would receive further criticisms if it were incorporated into the Local Plan without consultation.

The Eden Development Portfolio Holder responded that the Penrith Strategic Masterplan had no formal status at this present time, and it was not intended to be part of the Eden Local Plan at this stage. If going forward it were in a position to inform the Local Plan, the matter would be subject to a full public consultation process.

3.            Councillor Eyles asked the following question of the Leader:

“Has Eden District Council received any complaints from members of the public about the legality of its ‘engagement’ process with regard to the Penrith Masterplan?”

The Leader responded as follows:

“No such formal complaints have been received through the Council’s Complaints procedure.”

Councillor Eyles then asked a supplementary question querying whether letters from solicitors count as formal complaints.

The Leader responded that it would not be appropriate for him to comment on any legal challenge, and he re-iterated that no formal complaints on this topic had been received by the Council.

4.            Councillor Eyles asked the following question of the Leader:

“If the answer to my previous  ...  view the full minutes text for item Cl/65/1/19

Under Rule 26 of the Council Procedure Rules, a petition of over 500 signatures has been received by Eden District Council, and as such will be subject to debate. The subject of the petition is as follows:

“Reject the Penrith Strategic Masterplan and Keep Penrith Special.”

This petition will be discussed by Members for a maximum of fifteen minutes.

Attached is the text which accompanied the petition.

Under Rule 26 of the Council Procedure Rules, a petition of over 500 signature had been received by Eden District Council, and as such was subject to debate. The subject of the petition was as follows:

“Reject the Penrith Strategic Masterplan and Keep Penrith Special.”

Mr Adrian Hill presented the petition, and spoke for five minutes on the background of the petition, and why it had been brought forward to full Council.

Members were then allowed fifteen minutes to debate the substance of the petition.

Councillor Taylor began the debate by stating that there had never been a full Council meeting where Members were able to make any ideas they had public regarding the Masterplan. The Masterplan must be a viable document, but at the moment it is not. Although the Beacon Forest had been withdrawn from the plan, the concept of the Masterplan had left the forest vulnerable. The Masterplan had monopolised the time of Eden District Council officers, to the detriment of work in the rest of the District.

Councillor Nicolson stated that he had read the plan carefully, and personally he had a number of questions that he would like to see answered before the Council could determine where the plan would go. Change was inevitable, and the Council would have to be careful how they proceeded with the Masterplan. He welcomed the petition, but stated that we do need a plan for the development of Penrith. The Masterplan is a starting point, but not an end in itself.  He appreciated the concerns that had been raised, and requested that all parties expressed courtesy towards each other as work continued and missing information was filled in. All ideas should be welcomed, as it was for the benefit of the whole community.

Councillor Eyles stated that the petition was succinct and to the point. He requested all Members read the four page letter written by the Friends of the Lake District. He raised concern that the next iteration of the Masterplan will be accepted within the Local Plan without consultation, therefore there should be another public consultation undertaken with an option to withdraw the Masterplan presented.

Councillor Jackson clarified that Penrith Town Council’s approach towards the Beacon during their neighbourhood plan preparation was that the area was too large to give a protected planning designation, and its preference was for a smaller area to be protected. He went on to state that he had a personal interesting in ensuring that affordable housing was available to first time buyers. Rejecting the Masterplan outright does not get anyone anywhere except starting again with a blank canvas. He felt that what had been produced so far could be used as a starting point. Personally he felt that there was flaws within the Masterplan, but he felt that his thoughts and concerns had been taken on board.

Councillor Thompson stated that there was support for the Masterplan from groups which supported Penrith, such as the Chamber of Trade.

After fifteen minutes, the  ...  view the full minutes text for item Cl/66/1/19

To consider report TES3/19 from the Deputy Director Technical Services which provides an update on the public engagement for the Penrith Strategic Masterplan, which was concluded on 2 November 2018 and the intended next steps required to inform a review of the Eden Local Plan. This report is presented to Council for information.

RECOMMENDATION that progress on the scale and depth of the community engagement process for the Penrith Strategic Masterplan, and the next steps in moving towards a review (in full or in part) of the Eden Local Plan be noted.

Members considered report TES3/19 from the Deputy Director Technical Services which provided an update on the public engagement for the Penrith Strategic Masterplan, which was concluded on 2 November 2018 and the intended next steps required to inform a review of the Eden Local Plan. This report was presented to Council for information.

Proposed by Councillor Owen

Seconded by Councillor Breen

that progress on the scale and depth of the community engagement process for the Penrith Strategic Masterplan, and the next steps in moving towards a review (in full or in part) of the Eden Local Plan be noted.

Amendment proposed by Councillor Eyles

Seconded by Councillor Lynch

In consideration of the widespread criticism of the Masterplan and public dissatisfaction with the Executive’s engagement exercise, Council recommends to the Executive that the current version of the Masterplan be subject to an official public consultation with the option to reject it.

Under Rule 17 e) of the Council Procedure Rules a named vote on the amendment was demanded, and the following Councillors rose in support of it:

Councillors Clark, Eyles, Holden, Lynch, Rudhall, Sawrey-Cookson, Tompkins.

For the amendment: 16

(Councillor M Clark, A Connell, J Derbyshire, M Eyles, P Godwin, K Greenwood, D Holden, J Lynch, M Rudhall, H Sawrey-Cookson, R Sealby, L Sharp, M Smith, V Taylor, J Tompkins, M Tonkin)

Against the amendment: 16

(Councillor A Armstrong, K Beaty, D Banks, P Breen, I Chambers, L Grisedale, A Hogg, S Jackson, E Martin, G Nicolson, R Orchard, J Owen, J Raine, M Temple, J Thompson, A Todd)

Absentions: 1

(Councillor M Robinson)

The Chairman used her casting vote and it was RESOLVED that the amendment be accepted as the substantive motion.

For: 16

Against: 16

Absentions: 1

The Chairman used her casting vote and it was RESOLVED that

In consideration of the widespread criticism of the Masterplan and public dissatisfaction with the Executive’s engagement exercise, Council recommends to the Executive that the current version of the Masterplan be subject to an official public consultation with the option to reject it.

Councillor Jackson left the meeting at 8.33pm.

To consider report G4/19 from the Deputy Chief Executive which is attached and which seeks an appointment upon which a Member will sit for the remainder of this municipal year on the Appleby Multi Agency Strategic Co-ordinating Group (Appleby MASCG).

RECOMMENDATION that Members give consideration to nomination of a Member to Appleby MASCG for the remainder of the municipal year.

Members considered report G4/19 from the Deputy Chief Executive which sought an appointment upon which a Member will sit for the remainder of this municipal year as the District Council’s representative on the Appleby Multi Agency Strategic Co-ordinating Group (Appleby MASCG). He explained that both Cumbria County Council and South Lakeland District Council were being asked to similarly nominate one member as their Councillor representative on MASCG.

The Chairman sought nominations for 1 representative to sit on the Appleby Multi Agency Strategic Co-ordinating Group:

Proposed by Councillor Connell

Seconded by Councillor Banks

that Councillor Greenwood be appointed to sit on the Appleby Multi Agency Strategic Co-ordinating Group.

Proposed by Councillor Thompson

Seconded by Councillor Chambers

that Councillor Orchard be appointed to sit on the Appleby Multi Agency Strategic Co-ordinating Group.

For Councillor Greenwood: 17

For Councillor Orchard: 15

and RESOLVED that Councillor Greenwood will sit on the Appleby MASCG for the remainder of the municipal year.

To consider report F5/19 from the Director of Finance seeks to undertake the annual review of the Council Tax Reduction Scheme (CTRS) and to decide whether to amend the Scheme for 2019-2020, or leave it unchanged.

RECOMMENDATION that the Council Tax Reduction Scheme for 2019-2020 be amended to make the effective date of claim, for Council Tax Reduction applications for those in receipt of Universal Credit, the date the applicant made their claim for Universal Credit.

Members considered report F5/19 from the Director of Finance which sought to undertake the annual review of the Council Tax Reduction Scheme and to decide whether to amend the Scheme for 2019-2020, or leave it unchanged.

Proposed by Councillor Breen

Seconded by Councillor Eyles

RESOLVED that the Council Tax Reduction Scheme for 2019-2020 be amended to make the effective date of claim, for Council Tax Reduction applications for those in receipt of Universal Credit, the date the applicant made their claim for Universal Credit.

The next scheduled meeting of Council be confirmed as 14 February 2019.

The next scheduled meeting of Council be confirmed as 14 February 2019.

To consider whether, in accordance with Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, members of the public (including the press) should be excluded from the meeting during discussion of the following items of business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 1 of Part 1 to Schedule 12A of the Act.

RESOLVED that in accordance with Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, members of the public (including the press) should be excluded from the meeting during the discussion of the following items of business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 1 of Part 1 to Schedule 12A of the Act.

Councillors Nicolson, Sealby, Smith and Tonkin left the meeting at 8.45pm.

To consider report CE2/19 of the Chief Executive which is attached.

Members considered report CE2/19 from the Chief Executive.

RESOLVED that the recommendations contained within the report be approved.