Agenda item

Motions on Notice

A period of up to one hour is allocated to consider the motions on notice. This may only be extended with the agreement of the Council.

To consider the following motion submitted by Councillor :-

Minutes:

The Chairman reminded Members that one hour was allocated to consider the motions on notice.

G. L. Hearn Report

Members considered the following notice of motion, submitted by Councillor C. A. Hotham:

“BDC will temporarily set aside the broad brush basic report of Hearn until such time as its own in depth comprehensive review of the green belt has been completed. Only then will the content and conclusions of the Hearn report be considered alongside our own detailed investigation into the green belt.”

The motion was proposed by Councillor C. A. Hotham and seconded by Councillor S. R. Colella.

In proposing the motion Councillor Hotham highlighted a number of areas included within the G. L. Hearn report, which included a housing requirement of 28,000 by 2031 and 60,800 houses by 2036. He believed that there by using a higher housing density the number could drop by 13,000, reducing these figures to 15,000 and 48,000 respectively. In respect of the sites which the report stated were available across the West Midlands Combined Authority (WMCA) area it showed that 180,000 to 2031 and 198,000 available to 2036. However, in March 2018 the Government and WMCA announced funding to “clean” Brown Field sites, which meant that 215,000 sites would now be available to 2031. Councillor Hotham said his understanding of this was that it actually meant that to 2031 there would be a housing surplus of 20,000 with the shortfall dropping to 25,684 to the end of 2036. The report also suggested that should all the proposed sites be maximised then Bromsgrove could take 27,500, which would actually be 2,000 more than its total shortfall. His concern was that the majority of these homes would be executive style and not affordable ones, which were desperately needed. Councillor Hotham went on to comment about the role of G. L. Hearn and the other work which they carried out and questioned whether they had been impartial during the preparation of this report.

Councillor Hotham went on to question the methodology used in assessing the Green Belt and the designation of Principle and supportive categories, highlighting that most of the Bromsgrove Green Belt was classed as Principle and how this could undermine the strategic purpose of the Green Belt. Councillor Hotham believed that at no point had it been suggested within the Council Chamber that it was anything other than a needs assessment and not as an identification of sites. He also highlighted that there still appeared to be confusion over who had commissioned and paid for the report. He went on to say he understood that the document had been described as not a consultation document, but merely informed us of Birmingham’s needs, and that he believed that the housing number had shifted fundamentally and therefore undermined the report. Councillor Hotham therefore requested that the report be put on hold under the Council was able to complete its own review and that not to do so would give the report a credence and credibility that it did not currently deserve.

Following presentation of the motion Members went on to discuss the following areas in more detail:

· Who commissioned the report and its status – Members were concerned that if it was of more significance to Birmingham.

· The view that it should be ignored and that the Council should carry out its own piece of work in the first instance.

· Concerns around the reports provenance and why this Council had been involved in it.

· Whether the Black Country and Wyre Forest should be included within the process and who decided on who was “in” and who was “out”.

· The original “Brett” report form 2014 and the outcome from that report.

· The duty to co-operate and the need for this Council to work out what it needed before considering any other areas’ needs.

Councillor C. B. Taylor as the portfolio holder for Planning and Strategic Housing responded that he had sympathy with Members’ views and understood their concerns. However, it was not appropriate to not allow residents to respond to the findings of the report and officers would be required to seek responses from stakeholders. It was important that the Council understood the views of all concerned and that this would not limit its ability to respond to the evidence provided. The Hearn Report was not a consultation document, but would be included as part of the review which was currently being undertaken. It appeared that there was some confusion in respect of the LEPs and the Housing Market Area and it was confirmed that the report had been prepared and paid for by the Housing Market Area, of which the Council was a member. If the Council were to ignore this report as part of its review then the Inspectorate would question why this had happened, therefore it had to be considered and the aim was to do this in a constructive and controlled manner.

Further discussion followed in support of the motion and concerns were raised further in respect of the information within the report and the need for the Council to carry out its own Green Belt review before making reference to this document. The importance of putting the Council’s residents first was highlighted and it was felt that this was not the case within this report. The following comments were also highlighted:

· The apparent lack of transparency as to how this situation had arisen.

· The level of affordable housing to be included within any future developments.

· The potential impact on the future sale of land within particular areas and the knock on effect with developers.

· Agreements that had been made with other authorities in respect of this Council under the duty to co-operate.

Councillor Denaro confirmed that since he had taken up the position as Leader he had held no discussions with Birmingham in respect of housing. He advised that he would be meeting with the Mayor of the West Midlands Combined Authority in due course and would feedback following that meeting.

Councillor Taylor also reminded Members that, through the Strategic Planning Steering Group all Members had the opportunity to feed their views into the Local Plan Review. He encouraged Members to attend these meetings and highlighted that there had been limited attendance at the meetings which had been held to date. Opportunities had also been given to both Members and Parish Councils to discuss this report with meetings been held prior to the document’s release.

Councillor S. Baxter commented that someone must have provided the Housing Market Area what parameters and boundaries were to be included within their report and why this was not a decision made by this Council. Councillor Taylor agreed to give a full written response outside of the meeting. Councillor Baxter responded that her concerns were around the impact of this work on Neighbourhood Plans being worked on by a number of parish councils and how best those parish councils can manage this. She also questioned the procurement process which had been followed in the appointment of G. L. Hearn as wherever it had been funded from it would be public money that had funded it. She reminded Members that this Council had already, under the duty to co-operate accepted housing on behalf of Redditch Borough Council and the concern was that this would continue with other authorities before this Council had addressed its own housing needs.

In summing up Councillor Hotham reiterated that he was not asking for this report to be disregarded, simply that it be delayed until all the fact were available to the Council. It was particularly difficult to understand as to why the Council was giving this report credence when it was not something which it had commissioned.

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 18.3 a recorded vote was taken and voting was as follows:

For the recommendation Councillors Baxter, Bloore, Buxton, Colella, Hotham, Jenkins, Mallett, Peter McDonald, Christine McDonald, Peters, Shannon, Thompson, Van der Plank (13)

Against the recommendation Councillors Allen-Jones, Cooper, Deeming, Denaro, Dent, Glass, Griffiths, Laight, May, Sherrey, Spencer, Taylor, Thomas, Mike Webb, Shirley Webb, Whittaker (16)

The Chairman declared the motion to be lost.

Negative Grant

Members considered the following notice of motion, submitted by Councillor L. C. R. Mallett:

“Council is deeply concerned about the impact of the negative grant / tariff adjustment, also known as the “Sajid Tax” on our ability to meet the needs of our community. Council believes this is damaging and unjust.

Council notes it is in the top fifty for highest bills and Top 30 when compared to head of population.

Council calls on our MP Sajid Javid to give immediate assurance that the negative grant will be cancelled.”

The motion was proposed by Councillor L. C. R. Mallett and seconded by Councillor C. J. Bloore.

In proposing the motion Councillor Mallett commented that after a number of requests for the MP to attend a Council meeting with no response he had no option but to make a formal request through this notice of motion. He appreciated that it was difficult for Mr. Javid to attend on a Wednesday and had suggested an extraordinary meeting to fit in with his availability. He had also asked the Monitoring Officer to arrange for Standing Orders to be suspended in order for Mr. Javid to be given the opportunity to respond to questions asked of him. Councillor Mallett highlighted a number of other obstacles which had been raised which would prevent Mr. Javid from attending and advised that he did not believe these would have been insurmountable. Councillor Mallett called for an urgent review in respect of the Negative Grant, which would have a huge impact on the finances of this Council and request that Mr. Javid as the local MP give his support to the removal of this additional “tax”. The Council had faced a number of cuts to its budget over recent years and there was now the opportunity for this to be brought to a halt.

Following presentation of the motion Members discussed a number of areas in more detail:

· That the local MP should be support the residents of Bromsgrove in the first instance.

· How the funds that had been recouped by Central Government could have been spent within the local community.

· The impact on the Council of the continuous cuts to its budget.

· If this matter was not addressed it was clear that from 2019/20 the Council would struggle financially.

· The Council was one of a number of Councils who had been hit hard by the Negative Grant.

· Those Councils had made representations in respect of its impact on their overall budget position.

· The difficulties this caused in the Council being able to forward plan, together with the impact it had on decisions that it currently made.

· The pressures on services provided and the knock on effect on the parish councils because of this.

· The need for the Council to make a stand on behalf of its residents and the impact it will have on them.

· The potential for this to lead to an increase in Council Tax, which had already been raised each year.

· The impact any further increases would have on those residents with particular needs and the knock on effect on the services which they relied upon.

· Concerns that this would mean services would need to be cut – the Leader advised that no services would be cut and that there was currently a Government consultation being undertaken and a response from the Council had been submitted.

In summing up Councillor Mallett highlighted that the decision to impose this grant had cost this Council £750k and that Mr Javid as the MP for Bromsgrove residents should attend a Council meeting in order for this matter to be discussed and to allow him the opportunity to explain his rationale in imposing this “negative grant” and to be held to account for the impact of it.

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 18.3 a recorded vote was taken and voting was as follows:

For the recommendation Councillors Baxter, Bloore, Buxton, Colella, Hotham, Jenkins, Mallett, Peter McDonald, Christine McDonald, Peters, Shannon, Thompson, Van der Plank (13)

Against the recommendation Councillors Allen-Jones, Cooper, Deeming, Denaro, Dent, Glass, Griffiths, Laight, May, Sherrey, Spencer, Taylor, Thomas, Mike Webb, Shirley Webb, Whittaker (16)

The Chairman declared the motion to be lost.

It was noted that the notices of motion which had not been debated due to the one hour time allocation being used on these motions, would be carried over to the next ordinary meeting of Council to be held on 13^th June 2018.

Supporting documents: