July's Borough Council Meeting - A report

Last week’s council meeting contained some important matters including approving many capital projects held over from February as well as motions on important environmental matters and receiving the council’s annual report.

Council meeting last year

Our question about the very late commencement to weed spraying is obviously marked in the "too difficult" file, as we were promised a written answer in due course, even though the council had had sight of the question for 16 days prior to the meeting.

The next item was a review of polling places in wards across the Borough.  To site a mobile polling station costs an average of £1300.  The review was able to reduce the number of these in use and there will be a resultant annual saving.  There are still a number of mobile units being used in urban areas and I hope the number can be reduced further.  Ensuring people can vote is important, but sometimes the average election cost per elector who exercises their vote can be £8 or more.  I and my OWL colleagues supported the proposals which were passed unanimously.

The two main parties had little to say on the council annual report, surprising given it summarises the council’s range of activities for a full year.  Labour moved it and the Conservative leader opposed it in a very short speech which basically said they were against the local plan review.

Our West Lancashire took the opportunity to offer support to many areas of the council’s work Tawd Vale; North Meols Leisure Centre; the work on proceeding to new Leisure Centres; the Beechtrees Revival (though we need to start planning the next); and Apprenticeships among others along with the hard work of officers.  However as well as expressing our opposition to the local plan review, we highlighted the poor progress on delivering the promised financial savings from digital initiatives; concerns over the new Development company; and the ignoring of the public over the bus station development.

I also highlighted the concern in our Independent group over council performance in relation to Ormskirk Town centre.  I highlighted that rather than trumpeting their Discover Ormskirk website and Facebook page they should be concerned that they didn’t issue one article promoting the town for a whole two-month period earlier this year and that the statistics quoted were poor compared to other local web and social media sites.  I also pointed out that it was no surprise that there was no mention of the car park charges changes given that they had resulted in 77,000 fewer tickets being issued – an indication that some at least of the shoppers went elsewhere or visited less frequently.   

On the item concerning the year-end financial position, we had pressed during the elections and also in direct correspondence with the Council Leader in the run-up to this meeting for the Free Tree Scheme to be retained.  The council had not allocated funding in the budget in February.  I was delighted when the portfolio holder announced that the scheme would continue especially as I was aware of opposition among some of his colleagues. 

The performance for the Housing Account was the best I can remember and I said so; congratulating the officers concerned.

There were two motions on the agenda – both with an environmental theme.  The first was aiming at declaring a Climate Change Emergency and the second on fracking.

Our West Lancashire councillors supported the motion which stated the Borough Council’s continued opposition to fracking in West Lancashire, as we have in the past.  Half the Conservatives present left the chamber stating they felt there might be a risk of pre-determination over a forthcoming planning decision.  As the decision is to be made by the county council not Borough councillors this was illogical in my opinion and they could and should have participated.

The Climate Change Emergency motion focused on what could be done locally in the face of this global challenge.  Our West Lancashire councillors thought the motion was long on fine words but not specific about the actions the Borough Council could take. 

We suggested that the council should ensure new houses built were carbon neutral through planning policy and that new homes should be built for local need and not to satisfy wider objectives, so reducing the numbers required.  We suggested that new large warehouses if built following a new local plan (something we continue to oppose) should adopt the lowest carbon technologies available and be required to offset any remaining carbon generated. 

We wanted energy efficiency and insulation measures prioritised on the near 6000 homes owned by the council in the Borough through the council housing capital budget.  Finally, we highlighted the need for the local plan to encourage greater woodland planting in the Borough.

I was delighted that these ideas were taken on board for consideration.  I accepted a suggested wording change from Labour Cllr Dowling and the OWL amendment was passed and became part of the main motion which also passed.  It was a shame that the Conservatives were somewhat sour and voted against.

I concluded the contribution to the debate on the Council’s Annual Report by saying, “The Our West Lancashire Group will be interested this year to see how our ideas and comments are taken by both the main groups.  No one has a monopoly on good ideas and we don’t expect all our ideas to find universal favour, but our ideas clearly resonated with local residents in May. 

None of my five colleagues joined OWL from another political party and I can assure you they come from different political perspectives when viewing national politics.  There is a possibility that this council will go into no overall control at some point in the future.  That will be unfamiliar territory, but how, in our three groups we work together this year for the benefit of all the residents of the Borough will influence the views of my colleagues on who we work with and how we work should this council go to no overall control.”