Agenda and minutes

An apology for absence was received from Councillor S. A. Webb.

Cabinet was informed that Councillor K. Taylor would be arriving late for the meeting, however he would be in attendance.

To invite Councillors to declare any Disclosable Pecuniary Interests or Other Disclosable Interests they may have in items on the agenda, and to confirm the nature of those interests.

There were no Declarations of Interest.

The minutes of the Cabinet meeting held on 20^th April 2026 were submitted for Members’ consideration.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the Cabinet meeting held on 20^th April 2026 be approved as a true and accurate record.

There are no outstanding recommendations contained in the minutes of the Overview and Scrutiny Board included in this agenda pack. If there are any recommendations as a result of the pre-scrutiny of any Cabinet reports due to be considered at the Boards’s meeting on 16^th June 2026, these will be published in a supplementary papers pack to this agenda.

It was noted that there were no outstanding recommendations from the meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Board held on 14^th April 2026.

RESOLVED that the minutes from the Overview and Scrutiny Board meeting held on 14^th April 2026 be noted.

The Principal Democratic Services Officer presented a report concerning appointments to the Shareholders Committee for the 2026/27 municipal year.

The Committee was advised that, as the Shareholders Committee was a sub-committee of the Cabinet and formed part of the governance structure for Spadesbourne Homes Limited, it was the Cabinet’s responsibility to appoint Members to serve on the Committee. This included the appointment of a Chairman and Vice-Chairman.

It was further noted that only members of the Cabinet were eligible to serve on the Committee. However, Group Leaders would continue to be invited to attend meetings of the Shareholders Committee and participate in debates if they so wished, although they would not have voting rights.

RESOLVED that

1)    The following Members of the Cabinet be appointed to sit on the Shareholders Committee for the 2026/27 municipal year:

·       Councillor K.J. May

·       Councillor S.T. Nock

·       Councillor K. Taylor

·       Councillor S.A. Webb

·       Councillor P.J. Whittaker

2)    Councillor K.J. May be appointed as Chairman of the Committee for the 2026/27 municipal year; and

3)    Councillor P.J. Whittaker be appointed the Vice Chairman of the Committee for the 2026/27 municipal year.

The Principal Democratic Services Officer presented the Cabinet Appointments to Outside Bodies 2026/27 report for Members’ consideration.

It was noted that Council had made a number of appointments to Outside Bodies at the Annual Council meeting held on 20^th May 2026. However, several appointments related to executive functions and, as such, these were to be determined by the Cabinet.

RESOLVED that

the nominations to Outside Bodies as listed in Appendix 1 to the minutes be approved.

The Housing Development and Strategy Manager presented a report on the Shared Homelessness Strategy 2026-2031.

The Committee was reminded that the draft Shared Homelessness and Rough Sleeping Strategy 2026–2031 had been approved for public consultation by the Cabinet on 25th March 2026. The consultation had subsequently been completed, and responses had been incorporated into the action plan where appropriate.

It was reported that the strategy included Local Outcomes Framework measures provided by the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG). MHCLG had reviewed the strategy and confirmed that it was compliant, although a number of recommended actions had been suggested which had been incorporated into the action plan.

The framework utilised a range of national outcome indicators to assess performance, including:

·       The rate of households with children in temporary accommodation (per 1,000 households)

·       The number of families in Bed and Breakfast (B&B) accommodation for over six weeks

·       The percentage of duties owed where homelessness was prevented or relieved

·       The number of people sleeping rough on a single night

·       The number of people sleeping rough over the month who were long-term rough sleepers

The Committee was informed that delivery of the strategy would be overseen by the Housing Strategy Team and would sit under the existing Worcestershire Housing Board Plan.

In respect of financial implications, it was confirmed that the Homelessness, Rough Sleeping and Domestic Abuse Grant would provide funding to support the development of services aligned with the strategy. A report detailing spending priorities for the subsequent three years had already been presented to Members.

It was highlighted that the Council had a statutory duty under the Homelessness Act 2002 to produce a homelessness strategy, alongside compliance with the Homelessness Reduction Act, the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 and the Renters Rights Act 2025.

With regard to Local Government Reorganisation, Members were reassured that the strategy had been developed to be adaptable for incorporation into either one or two unitary authorities.

An Equality Impact Assessment had been completed, which demonstrated a positive outcome. It was noted that officers would continue to monitor impacts.

The risks associated with the Cabinet not approving the strategy were outlined. It was reported that this would result in the Council not being legally compliant. Furthermore, it was considered likely that households threatened with homelessness, or those in housing need, would have limited options for support to sustain or secure suitable accommodation. This could lead to:

·       Increased B&B costs

·       Increased rough sleeping in the District

·       Impacts on physical and mental health, educational achievement, ability to work and similar through increased homelessness

Following the presentation, Members discussed the report in detail and made the following comments:

·       The Cabinet Member for Planning and Strategic Housing expressed thanks to the Housing Development and Strategy Manager for the report.

·       It was noted that the action plan was extensive and Members queried whether this would pose a delivery challenge. Officers advised that a meeting was scheduled in the coming weeks to review the action plan and ensure that Bromsgrove  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7/26

The Assistant Director for Regeneration and Property Services presented a report on Economic Development and Regeneration Service Delivery for the Committee’s consideration.

The report sought approval for the release of £510,000 from the Economic Growth Reserve to continue funding key economic development and regeneration activities until 2028.

The Committee was advised that the programme operated within the Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) funding model. It was noted that funding from the UK Shared Prosperity Fund (UKSPF) was due to cease and that no replacement funding stream had yet been confirmed.

Members were informed that, should the funding not be released, Bromsgrove residents would receive a significantly reduced level of support, limited to that provided through the Worcestershire Growth Hub. It was confirmed that sufficient reserves were available and that funding would remain for other programmes.

In relation to Betaden, it was reported that officers were continuing to finalise the details of the Service Level Agreement (SLA), with some negotiations still outstanding. The original proposal had been that the Council would make a financial contribution in return for a guaranteed number of places on the programme. However, the number of places proposed significantly exceeded previous levels of take-up. It had subsequently been agreed that the Council would fund workshop places on a demand-led basis, whereby a fee would be payable for each business securing a place. The precise amount remained under negotiation.

Following presentation of the report, Members discussed the following points:

·       The Leader emphasised the importance of the funding, particularly in the context of Local Government Reorganisation. It was noted that the Worcestershire Leaders Board had confirmed that it would provide funding to the Worcestershire Growth Hub and Betaden. It was further highlighted that approximately 6 per cent of young people were not in employment, a situation which had been affected by increases in National Insurance rates.

·       Members queried how success would be measured. Officers advised that the SLAs would set out how businesses would be supported and that data would be collected on how funding had been utilised. Progress updates would be reported back to the Cabinet.

·       Clarification was sought regarding how the funding would be allocated and whether it would support businesses in employing additional staff. Officers advised that the Growth Hub employed staff to provide business support and guidance on available funding opportunities, some of which could be used towards staffing. Betaden provided programme and workshop places offering one-to-one business support. Careers Worcestershire utilised funding to employ staff who worked with young people to support them into employment, including assistance with the interview process where barriers such as transport or confidence issues existed.

·       Members welcomed the support for new businesses and young people, particularly in helping school leavers into employment. It was queried how this aligned with apprenticeship schemes and whether signposting would be provided. Officers confirmed that, although the funding focused on youth employment, Careers Worcestershire also supported apprenticeship schemes, and appropriate signposting could therefore be provided.

[Councillor K. Taylor arrived at the meeting during  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8/26

The Strategic Housing Services Manager presented the Enforcement and Civil Penalty Notice Policy report. 

The Committee was informed that this report followed on from the previous report presented to the Cabinet regarding the Renters’ Rights Act 2025. The Private Sector Housing Enforcement and Civil Penalty Notice Policy had been reviewed and re-written in response to the Act as it required significant alteration due to new enforcement duties arising.

Members were advised that the policy aligned with national best practice, including the Association of Chief Environmental Health Officers (ACEHO) model Enforcement and Civil Penalty Policy, and established a clear, consistent and legally robust framework for enforcement decision making and the application of civil penalties.

The policy applied to all private sector housing-related enforcement functions exercised by the Council, including private rented housing, owner-occupied housing, empty homes, Houses in Multiple Occupation and relevant site-based accommodation, where statutory powers applied.

It set out the Council’s approach to enforcing statutory requirements relating to, among other matters:

·       misuse of possession grounds

·       unlawful rent practices, including rent bidding

·       failure to provide prescribed tenancy information

·       discriminatory letting practices

·       compliance with the Private Rented Sector Database (once in force)

The implementation of the policy was expected to contribute to improved housing conditions, reduced health risks and increased tenancy security and within the District.

Members’ attention was drawn to the matrix of civil penalties notices, which was based on national best practice. It took into account the size of a landlord’s property portfolio and the number of offences.

In considering the report, Members commented on the following points:

·       The complexity of the matrix. Officers acknowledged this and advised that the complexity was reflected in the level of detail contained within the policy. It was further noted that any appeals against decisions would be determined by a first-tier tribunal (Property Chamber).

·       Concerns were raised that the listed costs for offences appeared severe at first glance. However, it was noted that the policy set out an initial informal approach for some offences, providing an opportunity for issues to be resolved before any formal enforcement action was taken. Officers clarified that the level of fines had been set by Government and that the Council had adopted a staged approach in line with national best practice. It was further explained that, where appropriate, an advisory and information-led approach would be taken in the first instance, although certain breaches, such as confirmed illegal evictions, would result in a civil penalty notice or prosecution.

·       Members queried whether the policy provided protection for landlords in situations where tenants caused damage to properties. It was noted that the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 was primarily focused on tenant protection. Officers clarified that the policy related specifically to enforcement standards for property conditions and tenant protections, rather than landlord recourse. It was further explained that landlords retained the ability to take action through existing legal routes, including strengthened Section 8 provisions.

·       Questions were raised regarding how the Council would identify unregistered landlords. Officers advised that landlords were not currently  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9/26

The Business Improvement Manager presented a report outlining performance across Quarter Four.

Members were advised that the overall position remained stable for the quarter. The key highlights were outlined to the Committee, including that one hundred per cent of major planning applications had been determined, a reduction in the use of temporary accommodation and response times for fly-tipping incidents remained operationally stable. However, it was noted that recycling performance and the proportion of complaints responded to within the ten-day standard, recorded at eighty-five per cent, required improvement.

Following presentation of the report, Members discussed the following matters:

·       Members suggested that this positive performance should be more effectively utilised within communications to residents in order to spread the positive message.

·       The issue of sickness absence was discussed. Concerns were raised regarding the potential impact on particular service areas, and Members expressed a desire for future reports to distinguish between short-term and long-term sickness absence. It was also suggested that comparative data be provided against neighbouring authorities. Officers confirmed that long-term sickness absence had reduced and that the Council’s targets were aligned with the national average, which was approximately seven point eight per cent. It was further acknowledged that Local Government Reorganisation may have had an impact on staff morale and stress levels.

·       Performance in respect of business rates collection was noted to be strong.

·       Members raised concerns regarding gym membership figures, which were below the target of 3,000 and stood at 2,264 in Quarter Three, with what appeared to be a downward trend. It was confirmed that a report regarding the performance of Sports and Leisure Management (SLM) Limited would be presented to the Overview and Scrutiny Board in July 2026, at which point further detail would be provided. SLM would be in attendance at the meeting.

·       In relation to the apparent decline in gym membership figures, officers acknowledged that the way in which the data had been presented had created a potentially misleading impression of a sharp drop. It was suggested that future reporting should present this data more clearly to avoid misinterpretation. It was also noted that the targets set within the report reflected contractual arrangements and were considered ambitious, and these would be reviewed as part of the forthcoming report.

·       Members discussed factors influencing gym membership retention, including seasonal variations. Officers advised that membership cancellations occurred at different intervals, commonly after a period of around three months, although some members retained memberships for longer periods. It was noted that SLM monitored membership retention. Members also highlighted the level of competition within the local area and queried whether this was impacting membership levels. Officers confirmed that local competition and the overall offer, including pricing and facilities, would be considered as part of the forthcoming review.

RESOLVED that the overview of Quarter 4 performance for the period January to March 2026 against the Council Plan priorities be noted. 

The Director of Finance and Section 151 Officer presented a report on the subject of the updated VAT recovery position.

Members were advised that, following the implementation of a new financial system in 2021, a number of issues had arisen, compounded by staff turnover and weaknesses in processes at that time. As a result, VAT returns had not been submitted to HMRC for the period April 2021 to October 2024 and HMRC had therefore been holding funds due to be returned to the Council. A chronology of events had been provided within the report.

It was reported that, once the issue had been identified, it had been agreed with HMRC that Error Correction Notices (ECNs) would be submitted in order to recover the funds. An initial sum of £472,000 had been received in December 2024, which was subsequently reversed through the ECN process. Further work had been undertaken to review the ‘General Ledger’ and identify additional amounts where VAT had not been appropriately accounted for. A final ECN, submitted on 12th June 2026, totalled £1.79 million, resulting in a net position of approximately £1.76 million due to Bromsgrove District Council from HMRC.

Members were advised that this recovery would have a positive impact on the Council’s cash position. It was noted that the accounting for each of the affected years had already been reflected in the Council’s accounts and therefore no additional reserves would be created. However, the improved cash position would reduce the need for borrowing and provide increased opportunities for investment. Confirmation from HMRC in relation to the final ECN was yet to be received.

In considering the report, Members had detailed discussion and commented on the following points:

·       Reference was made to Redditch Borough Council’s position, where a significantly larger sum had been identified. Officers explained that this reflected structural differences between the authorities, including Redditch’s larger budget, larger capital programme and the operation of a Housing Revenue Account, which all led to a higher volume of transactions and associated VAT. It was further noted that Bromsgrove was responsible for billing Redditch for a higher proportion of Shared Services provided between the authorities.

·       Members queried the accuracy of the figure for Bromsgrove. Officers advised that, whilst the amount had been calculated based on the information available, it could not be formally confirmed until HMRC had completed its review.

·       Concerns were raised regarding previous estimates that had suggested a significantly higher figure. It was noted that the situation was very complex and figures were continually changing until the claim had been submitted to HMRC.

·       Discussion took place regarding the VAT treatment of shared services between Bromsgrove and Redditch. Officers explained that as a result of the arrangements i.e. Bromsgrove billing Redditch, the VAT position was offset in Bromsgrove but increased in Redditch. Bromsgrove was not charged VAT on the underlying costs e.g. salaries, but Redditch was charged VAT on the same services as they were purchasing a vatable service from Bromsgrove. This led to a higher recovery of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11/26

The Regeneration Programme Manager presented a report on delivery options for Windsor Street.

Members were reminded that, in November 2025, a report had been considered outlining options for the redevelopment of Windsor Street, with Cabinet resolving that the site should be developed for residential purposes in partnership with a Registered Social Landlord (RSL). It was reported that external funding had been secured to de-risk the project without requiring match funding from the Council.

Phase two had commenced recently and included a twelve-month monitoring period. Any overspend was being met from the Levelling Up contingency budget.

Members were advised that discussions had taken place with a number of RSLs. Of the five organisations approached, three had indicated that they were not interested in the site, while two had expressed an interest in acquiring the site to deliver one hundred per cent affordable housing. However, both RSLs had indicated a preference for outright acquisition rather than entering into a partnership arrangement.

On this basis, officers had explored the option of securing outline planning permission prior to disposal, which would also allow the Council to influence the design and reduce potential delays. It was noted that although this was not the original plan, it aligned with the strategic objectives of the site and RSLs could submit proposals which would allow the Council to retain control over which scheme was selected.

The proposal therefore sought funding of £150,000 from reserves to progress an outline planning application. It was noted that this amount would be replenished upon disposal of the site, which was expected to generate a capital receipt and provide a return on investment.

In considering the report, Members had detailed discussion and commented on the following matters:

·       It was highlighted that the proposed development would include affordable housing, which could comprise shared ownership as well as social housing.

·       Members queried how the £150,000 figure had been determined. Officers explained that the estimate was based on comparable costs for preparing outline planning applications, including the requirement for surveys, supporting evidence, and external expertise. It was noted that costs could vary depending on the level of detail included within the application.

·       Members discussed the level of detail to be included in the planning application, with the view that greater detail could provide enhanced control over the eventual scheme.

·       It was suggested that RSLs could be invited to develop proposals that met the Council’s requirements prior to submission of a planning application. Officers advised that, following soft market testing, ongoing dialogue with interested RSLs would continue to ensure that proposals reflected viability and local housing needs.

·       Timeframes were queried. Officers advised that site remediation was expected to be completed by September 2026 and the twelve-month monitoring period would be completed by September 2027. The planning process was anticipated to take between six and twelve months.

·       Members queried whether parts of the site could be used for temporary accommodation to reduce reliance on Bed and Breakfast provision. Officers advised that significant infrastructure would be required to make  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12/26

There was no Urgent Business on this occasion.