Agenda and minutes

The Minutes of the meeting held on 22 September 2011 were taken as read and signed as a correct record.

            The Board considered a report of the Strategic Directors, Policy and Resources and Children and Enterprise, on the Halton Child and Family Poverty Strategy 2011-13.

            The Board was advised that the Child and Family Poverty Act 2010, created a Government commitment to eradicate child poverty by 2020. Specific duties imposed upon local authorities and designated partners included:

·        To co-operate to mitigate the effects of child poverty;

·        To prepare a local child poverty needs assessment;

·        Child poverty to be taken into account when preparing or revising the Sustainable Community Strategy; and

·        To produce a local joint child poverty strategy.

The Board noted that the European Union’s working definition of poverty, which had been adopted by authorities in the Liverpool City Region was:-

“Persons, families and groups of persons, whose resources (material, cultural and social) are so limited as to exclude them from the minimum    acceptable way of life in the Member State to which they belong.’’

            It was noted that the definition recognised that poverty was about effective exclusion from ordinary living patterns, customs and activities, such as income poverty, difficulty accessing quality services such as housing, health and education, as well as the ability to participate in the community and to engage in social activities. In addition, it had a negative impact on experience of education and training and affected the transition to independence.

            The Board was further advised that the draft strategy had been subject to extensive consultation and was formally endorsed by the Halton Strategic Partnership Board in September 2011.

Reason for Decision

The Child Poverty Act 2010 placed a duty upon the Council and key partners to complete a child poverty needs assessment and a strategy for the elimination of child poverty across the local authority by 2020.

Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

The option of not developing a strategy for the elimination of child poverty in Halton was precluded by the duties placed upon the Council by the Child Poverty Act 2010.

The process of developing the strategy had been overseen by a multi-agency steering group, chaired by the Portfolio holder for Children, Young People and Families.

During the development of the Strategy, over 30 partner organisations and services had participated together with a wide range of local residents and service users.

Implementation Date 

October 2011, upon formal adoption by the Council and partners.

            RESOLVED: That the Child and Family Poverty Strategy 2011-13 be approved.

            The Board considered a report of the Strategic Director, Policy and Resources on the Parliamentary Boundary Review.

The Board was advised that the Boundary Commission had the task of periodically reviewing the boundaries of all Parliamentary Constituencies of England. New rules, laid down by Parliament, involved a significant reduction in the number of constituencies in England from 533 to 502.

The Boundary Commission had completed the first stage of a review process and had published its initial proposals. Details of these proposals as they affected the North West, Cheshire and Halton were contained in the report with full details of proposals available on the Boundary Commission web site: http://consultation.boundarycommissionforengland.independent.gov.uk/

 The overall review process would be undertaken in five stages with final recommendations in place by 1 October 2013. The Board was reminded that the Council and any interested body had until 5 December 2011 to submit comments on the proposals.

RESOLVED: That Council be recommended to:

1)      strongly oppose the inclusion of Hale and Ditton in the Mersey Banks Constituency for the reasons outlined in paragraph 4.6 of the Executive Board report;

2)      suggest that the Penketh and Cuerdley Ward remains within a Warrington based Constituency;

3)      support the creation of a “Halton” Constituency containing the following Wards:

         Appleton, Beechwood, Birchfield, Broadheath, Hale, Halton Castle, Farnworth, Grange, Halton Brook, Halton Lea, Halton View, Heath, Ditton, Hough Green, Kingsway, Mersey, Riverside and Windmill Hill.

         (This Constituency would fit the Commission’s number criteria as it contains 79,654 electors);

4)      not support the renaming of the Halton Constituency – Widnes and Runcorn – as, if the Council’s proposal in 3) above is accepted, then the Constituency of Halton would be substantially as it is now and therefore would not require renaming;

5)           Reluctantly accept the inclusion of Daresbury, Norton North and Norton South in a Warrington South Constituency; and

6)           express concern to the Commission in relation to the lack of publicity given to this important topic and the difficulty presented to third parties in doing so because of a potential conflict of interest.

            The Board received a report of the Operational Director, Finance on the Local Government Resource Review Proposals for Business Rates Retention Consultation.

            The Board was advised that the Government’s Local Government Resource Review would make fundamental changes to the funding of local government and have a significant impact upon the future resources available to the Council.

            As part of the Resource Review, the Government had launched a consultation in relation to the proposals for Business Rates Retention. In August 2011, eight technical papers were published which provided further details of the proposals. The consultation set out how Tax Increment Financing (TIF) and the New Homes Bonus would work within the proposed Business Rates Retention System.

            The Board was further advised that the consultation did not propose any changes to the current business rates payment mechanism, with the rateable values set by the Valuation Office Agency and the rate in the pound set by Government. However, the changes proposed related to the re-distribution of business rates and this was outlined in the report for Members’ consideration.

            The Board noted that the deadline for responses on the consultation was 24 October 2011. Halton’s proposed response was contained in Appendix 2. In addition, it was proposed that the Council made a contribution to a joint response by the Liverpool City Region.

            RESOLVED: That

1)         the consultation response presented in Appendix 2 be approved; and

2)         the Council contributes to a joint consultation response by the Liverpool City Region.

The Board considered:

(1)       whether Members of the press and public should be excluded from the meeting of the Board during consideration of the following item of business in accordance with Sub-Section 4 of Section 100A of the Local Government Act 1972 because it was likely that, in view of the nature of the business to be considered, exempt information would be disclosed, being information defined in Section 100 (1) and paragraph 3 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972; and

(2)       whether the disclosure of information was in the public interest, whether any relevant exemptions were applicable and whether, when applying the public interest test and exemptions, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed that in disclosing the information.

            RESOLVED: That as, in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information, members of the press and public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the following items of business in accordance with Sub-Section 4 of Section 100A of the Local Government Act 1972 because it is likely that, in view of the nature of the business, exempt information will be disclosed, being information defined in Section 100 (1) and paragraph 3 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

            The Board considered a report of the Strategic Director, Children and Enterprise on Land Disposal for Housing Development.

            The Board was reminded that, after extensive stakeholder and community consultation, in September 2003 the Council formally adopted the ‘Castlefields Masterplan - An ambition for regeneration and a plan for action’. In doing so, the Council also authorised a series of supporting actions to help deliver the Masterplan, as outlined in the report.

            The Board noted that to facilitate the delivery of the Masterplan the Council adopted the Castlefields and Norton Priory Action Area Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) in June 2005, to formally guide the physical regeneration of the area. The Masterplan and SPD provided the basis for approval by the Local Planning Authority in August 2008 of outline planning permission for residential development of Lakeside and Canalside. In July 2009 the outline permission was extended for a further three years.

            RESOLVED: That the disposal of c. 5.9 acres of land, subject to planning permission, and subject to a formal valuation report from the District Valuer, be approved.

MINUTES ISSUED: 17 October 2011

CALL-IN: 24 October 2011

Any matter decided by the Executive Board may be called in no later than 5.00pm on 24 October 2011