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.

Minutes:

New Homes Bonus

Members considered the following notice of motion submitted by Councillor P. M. McDonald:

“This Council immediately ceases the practice of double accounting, by charging £2,000 administration for the transfer of New Homes Bonus Grant of £27,000 from last year to this year’s account thus reducing the amount of monies available to the public. The Council is guilty of sharp practice which has no place in local government.”

The motion was proposed by Councillor P. M. McDonald and seconded by Councillor C. M. McDonald.

Councillor P. M. McDonald referred to the Cabinet minutes of 6^th September when it was highlighted that £2,000 had been deducted from the New Homes Bonus Grants Scheme to cover the cost of administration and carrying forward funds from the previous year’s scheme.

Councillor S. A. Baxter, as Chairman of the NHB Community Grants Panel, responded that this was not sharp practice as had been indicated but that the officer had prepared a detailed schedule of time spent on administrating the scheme as a whole and this had been included in the earlier report which had reviewed the scheme and been considered by Cabinet earlier in the year. However, it was acknowledged that it might have been more appropriate to have deducted the charge from the overall New Homes Bonus funds as opposed to that for the Grant Scheme and this would be suggested for any future years.

The Leader agreed that with hindsight the administration cost should have been deducted from the overall grant funding and this would be the case in future. A brief further debate then took place.

On being put to the vote the Chairman declared the motion to be defeated.

Too Many Cars in Bromsgrove

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

“Council notes that even Worcestershire County Council's (WCC) potentially flawed highways survey data from 2017 shows large uplifts in traffic volume over the past few years over historic levels.

Council further notes that on some roads especially on the west of town the actual observed growth is much higher than the previous projections from Worcestershire highways' now discredited models.

Council resolves to commission an urgent independent review of all WCC input into current development strategy and any local highways strategy, including the analysis and report around the need for a Western distributor road for Bromsgrove.”

The motion was proposed by Councillor L. C. R. Mallett and seconded by Councillor M. Thompson.

During presentation of his Notice of Motion Councillor Mallett highlighted the vast number of traffic surveys which had taken place and the impact of roadworks on these. He provided data on a number of areas, including:

· Dependence on car ownership across the District was very high (Bromsgrove is ranked sixteenth out of 326 English districts in the 2011 census for the availability of cars and vans for household use and tenth for the proportion of workers who chose to travel to their place of work by car).

· In the thirty years between 1981 and 2011 the number of households in the District increased by 27%, with the average number of cars owned by each household increasing by 43% and the total number of cars and vans owned by residents increasing by 82%.

· The only major road investment in the west of Bromsgrove in that time was the roundabout on Stourbridge Road towards Barnsley Hall and the short length of road there that was planned as the first part of a potential link between Stourbridge Road and Birmingham Road.

· Worcestershire County Council (WCC) had forecast that between September 2014 and May 2017 traffic in Bromsgrove would decline by 0.25%. The May 2017 traffic surveys showed that traffic in Bromsgrove had in fact increased by 7.5%.

· Between 2012 and May 2017 Whitford Road southbound traffic increased by 16% and northbound by 15%. Between 2013 and May 2017 for the Kidderminster Road west of the Whitford Road junction, westbound traffic increased by 16% and eastbound traffic increased by 28%.

· Based on WCC’s background and development growth assumptions up to 2022 the IDP improvements proposed by WCC at the Waitrose junction would result in traffic flows across the junction being 28% greater than the operational capacity of the junction.

Councillor Mallett also highlighted a number of key points in respect of a western distributor road in that the Adopted Bromsgrove District Plan covered the years 2011 to 2030 but the IDP only identified the infrastructure that WCC deemed necessary to meet the initial growth up to 2023, WCC had not undertaken any design or modelling work to demonstrate that the IDP improvements could be delivered and would mitigate the impact of major developments. It was also highlighted that the WCC distributor road feasibility study and the IDP did not consider the impact of development traffic generated by a number of other areas such as the regeneration of the town centre and development of the eastern side of Kidderminster.

In responding to the Notice of Motion, Councillor C. B. Taylor, Portfolio Holder for Planning and Housing Services, gave agreement to a number of the areas which had been raised, however he advised that there was a great deal of data available and that the Council had engaged Mott McDonald to analyse this together with officers and that this would take some time and the opportunity should be provided to consider this before deciding on what, if any, action needed to be taken. There was a meeting of the Strategic Planning Review Group, to which all Members had been invited, on 26^th September, where it was suggested it would be more appropriate for this matter to be discussed in detail.

During the following debate a number of areas were discussed in more detail:

· The need to talk to and listen to residents who would be affected by developments in the future.

· Mistakes which had been made in the past and the impact of these, together with the need to ensure that this did not happen again.

· Allow Mott McDonald to analyse the data available before deciding what further action the Council should take.

· The impact of the roadworks on the data which was gathered in May 2017.

The Leader suggested that a report be prepared and presented to the November Council meeting which would give both officers and Mott McDonald the time needed to carefully consider the data which was available.

Following further debate and assurances from the Leader in respect of a report being presented to Council in November, Councillor Mallett agreed to the motion being withdrawn.

NJC Pay Claim

Members considered the following notice of motion from Councillor M. Thompson:

“NJC basic pay has fallen by 21% since 2010 in real terms NJC workers had a three-year pay freeze from 2010-2012. Local terms and conditions of many NJC employees have also been cut, impacting on their overall earnings. There are growing equal and fair pay risks resulting from this situation

The council therefore supports the NJC pay claim for 2018, submitted by UNISON, GMB and Unite on behalf of council workers and calls for immediate end of public sector pay restraint. NJC pay cannot be allowed to fall further behind other parts of the public sector.

This council also notes the drastic ongoing cuts to local government funding and calls on the government to provide additional funding to fund a decent pay rise for NJC employees and the pay spine review.

This council therefore resolves to call immediately on the LGA to make urgent representations to government to fund the NJC claim and the spine review and notify us of their action in this regard write to the Prime Minister and Chancellor supporting the NJC pay claim and seeking additional funding to fund a decent pay rise and the pay spine review meet with the NJC union representatives to convey the support for the pay claim and the pay spine review.”

The motion was proposed by Councillor M. Thompson and seconded by Councillor P. M. McDonald.

In presenting the Motion Councillor Thompson took the opportunity to express the Council’s gratitude to those officers who he felt were under-valued and over worked following the cuts and pay restrictions that they had faced in recent years.

During the following debate reference was made to the public sector’s lack of a pay increase since 2010 and the impact this had had on some of the lowest paid workers, who were also faced with increased workloads due to the cuts made by central government. This had put them under immense pressure and the time had come to show support for those valued workers by lifting the restrictions on pay increases and allowing them to freely negotiate a reasonable salary in the future.

The Leader understood the challenges faced and supported the Council’s employees. He explained that the appropriate avenues would be explored to ensure that a satisfactory outcome would be reached. The Council would continue to work with the LGA to ensure this was the case and the Leader felt it was not necessary to support this particular motion.

Councillor Cooper, as Portfolio Holder for Finance, ICT and Enabling Services, also responded that all Council staff were at least receiving the living wage or more and an increase of 1% had been factored into the forthcoming budget at a cost of £107k. He highlighted the cost to the Council of any additional pay increase and the impact to the Council’s finances, which were already under pressure. He suggested it was therefore more appropriate to leave the negotiations to the NJC.

On being put to the vote the Chairman declared the motion to be defeated.

Affordable Housing

Members considered the following notice of motion from Councillor C. J. Bloore:

“Council notes the shortage of affordable homes in the Bromsgrove District.

Council notes the challenges facing Bromsgrove District Council in attracting and retaining young people in the local area due to local above average housing prices.

Council notes the challenging local private renting situation in the Bromsgrove District area.

Council believes it should be an integral part of the Councils economic strategy to best ensure a housing market that meets our economic needs.

Council resolves to ensure that on developments of over fifteen dwellings or more a minimum of 40% of units should be affordable.”

The motion was proposed by Councillor C. J. Bloore and seconded by Councillor P. M. McDonald.

In presenting the Motion Councillor Bloore made reference to the recent Green Paper on the quality and number of social houses being built, in particular the need for 1,560 affordable homes in the District. Members were reminded of a recent Task Group report and recommendations in respect of this and his disappointment in the slow progress which had been made since the review concluded. Reference was made to the record of the Council for building affordable homes on new developments and the numbers to be increased. Consideration had previously been given to this being 40% per development, however this had been amended within the Local Plan and was now stated as “up to 40%”. If the Council wished to move forward with its current plans to regenerate the town centre and support residents then it needed to ensure that there were sufficient affordable homes available for young people in order to allow them to live and work here.

Councillor Bloore requested an amendment be made to the motion in that it should refer to 10 houses and not 5 as stated. The amendment was accepted.

During the following debate a number of points were highlighted in detail:

· The number of developments which had taken place in the District with a limited number of affordable homes included within them.

· The missed opportunities which would have addressed the need for affordable homes.

· The impact on those residents who were born and bred in Bromsgrove.

· The limited availability of private rental accommodation and its cost.

· The potential impact of the introduction of Universal Credit on those on low incomes within the District.

Councillor S. A. Baxter proposed an amendment to the Motion; in that in order to give this matter full consideration it should be referred to the Strategic Planning Review Group which was due to meet shortly. This would allow a more detailed discussion to be held with all relevant information being made available to Members and any conclusion from that Group being brought back to full Council in due course. It was noted that the Strategic Planning Review Group was made up of a core Membership but all Members had been invited to attend. Members were also encouraged to bring forward sites which they believed to be suitable for development and these would be given consideration, as it was acknowledged that this was an area which needed to be addressed in the future in order to meet the needs of those living in the District.

Councillor Bloore indicated that he would be happy for the amendment to be made.

On being put to the vote the amendment was declared to be carried.

Supporting documents: