Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received on behalf of Councillors S. Colella, R. Jenkins, L. Mallett, M. Middleton, J. Till and K. Van Der Plank.

Members were advised that Councillors M. Glass and S. Robinson would be arriving late at the meeting and had submitted apologies due to the delay.

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.

During consideration of Minute Item No. 30/21 Councillor H. Rone-Clarke commented that he worked for a public house.  However, Officers confirmed that he did not have a disclosable pecuniary interest to declare on this occasion.

The minutes of the Annual Council meeting held on Wednesday 19^th May 2021 were submitted.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the Annual Council meeting held on 19^th May 2021 be approved as a true and correct record.

There were no announcements from the Chairman or Head of Paid Service on this occasion.

There were no announcements from the Leader on this occasion.

A period of up to 15 minutes is allowed for members of the public to make a comment, ask questions or present petitions.  Each member of the public has up to 3 minutes to do this.  A councillor may also present a petition on behalf of a member of the public.

There were no comments, questions or petitions from the public for Members’ consideration.

There were no urgent decisions for consideration on this occasion.

Councillor C. Hotham, Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Board for part of the 2020/21 municipal year, presented the Board’s Annual Report for Members’ consideration. 

There had been a number of Task Group investigations during the year, including reviews of equalities, libraries and flooding in the District.  The reports detailing Members’ findings in respect of equalities and flooding had already been considered by the Cabinet whilst the report on the subject of Libraries would be discussed at a meeting of Cabinet in September 2021.

Councillor Hotham concluded his presentation by thanking the Democratic Services Officer with lead responsibility for Overview and Scrutiny, the former Senior Democratic Services Officer for Bromsgrove as well as all of the Officers and Portfolio Holders who had provided evidence to the Board for consideration during the year.  Thanks were also extended to Councillor M. Thompson who had chaired the Board for part of the year.

Following the presentation of the report Members discussed the work of the Overview and Scrutiny Board and Scrutiny Task Groups during the year.  It was noted that Overview and Scrutiny formed an important part of the Council’s democratic process.  Good scrutiny contributed to good decision making and was therefore welcomed by the Council.

During consideration of this item, reference was made to the Cabinet’s response to the Impact of Flooding in the District Task Group.  The former Chairman of this Task Group, Councillor R. Hunter, expressed concerns that the group’s recommendations had not been approved and that the group had not been made aware of a separate ongoing review of land assets and flooding.  It was noted that the scrutiny investigation of the subject had taken place over a period of months and had been very detailed.  However, Members were also asked to note that Cabinet took flooding very seriously and it would be possible to determine what further action should be taken once the separate report on this subject had been presented for Cabinet’s consideration in September.

Reference was also made to the foreword to the report, which highlighted the role of the Board to scrutinise matters in an impartial and apolitical manner.  Questions were raised about the extent to which the process was apolitical and the response received to recommendations made through the scrutiny process from the Cabinet.  However, Members were advised that the Board and Task Groups aspired to be apolitical, in line with national best practice in Overview and Scrutiny, which enabled the Board to act as a counterbalance to the Cabinet.

In concluding the discussions, Members noted that there was a typographical error on page 10 of the report, which stated that Members had discussed matters at a meeting of the Board held in October 2021.  Members agreed that this should have referred to a meeting in October 2020.

RESOLVED that the report be noted.

In the absence of the Chairman of the Audit, Standards and Governance Committee, the Vice Chairman of the Committee in 2020/21 presented the Committee’s Annual Report.  Members were advised that the report detailed the Committee’s work during the year and had been submitted for noting.

Members paid tribute to the work of the Audit, Standards and Governance Committee in 2020/21.  Particular reference was made to the Chairman of the Committee in that municipal year, Councillor L. Mallett, who was thanked for his hard work during the year.

During consideration of this item, questions were raised about the progress that had been achieved with the introduction of the Council’s new ERP finance system, which had been discussed during a meeting of the Committee.  Concerns were raised that, whilst the system had been due to be fully operational in January 2021, issues had been reported with the system.  Officers agreed to obtain a written response for Members’ consideration in respect of this matter.

RESOLVED that the Audit, Standards and Governance Committee’s Annual Report 2020/21 be noted.

The Portfolio Holder for Finance and Enabling presented the Council’s nominations to Outside Bodies for 2021/22.  Members were advised that some Outside Body appointments were made in an ex officio capacity whilst other appointments were nominations that had been made by political groups.

During consideration of this matter Members noted that it would be interesting to receive updates in respect of Members’ work on the Outside Bodies from time to time.  The suggestion was made that this might be a suitable topic for scrutiny.

The recommendation in respect of the Outside Body nominations 2021/22 was proposed by Councillor G. Denaro and seconded by Councillor K. May.

RESOLVED that Council approves the nominations to the Outside Bodies for 2021/22.

The Portfolio Holder for Finance and Enabling presented a report outlining proposals to introduce public speaking in respect of Tree Preservation Order (TPO) reports considered at meetings of the Planning Committee. 

The Constitution Review Working Group had considered proposals to introduce public speaking for TPOs at the request of Members.  The matter had been reviewed and no legal reason had been identified that did not permit public speaking to occur at Planning Committee meetings in respect of TPOs.

During consideration of this item questions were raised about the extent to which Parish Council representatives and ward Councillors would be permitted to register to speak on TPOs as part of this process.  It was noted that the report had been in the public domain for some time, having previously been scheduled for consideration at a meeting of Council held in April 2021, and some disappointment was expressed that this question had not therefore been raised prior to the meeting.  However, Members were advised that the public could register to speak both in support and in opposition to a TPO and it was likely that this option would also be available to ward Councillors and Parish Council representatives, though this would be confirmed after the meeting. 

The recommendation in respect of the introduction of public speaking for the consideration of TPOs at Planning Committee was proposed by Councillor G. Denaro and seconded by Councillor P. Whittaker.

RESOLVED that the Planning Procedure Rules be amended to permit public speaking at meetings of the Planning Committee in respect of Tree Preservation Orders.

The Portfolio Holder for Finance and Enabling presented a report proposing changes to the membership arrangements for the Constitution Review Working Group.  These changes would result in the membership reflecting the political balance of the Council, though under the rules, the membership of the group could not form part of the formal political balance.

The report was subsequently discussed in some detail and Members queried the potential for the Constitution Review Working Group to be allocated formal decision-making powers.  Officers explained that Council was the responsible body in terms of decisions about the authority’s constitution and therefore the Constitution Review Working Group could only make recommendations.

Reference was also made to the potential for the membership of the Climate Change Working Group to be changed in a similar manner to the Constitution Review Working Group, and for the group to have decision making powers.  Council was informed that the Constitution Review Working Group would have an opportunity to review membership arrangements for other Working Groups moving forward.  

The recommendations were proposed by Councillor G. Denaro and seconded by Councillor A. Kent.

RESOLVED that

(1)      The membership of the Constitution Review Working Group be amended to reflect the Council’s political balance; and

(2)      The Council’s constitution be amended to require the membership of the Constitution Review Working Group to reflect the political balance.

The Portfolio Holder for Strategic Housing and Health and Well Being presented a report updating Members on the former Council House site at Burcot Lane.  Council was informed that the report detailed the next steps in the process for the disposal of the site for the development of affordable housing.

The Burcot Lane site and redevelopment plans were subsequently discussed in some detail.  Concerns were raised about how earlier plans for redevelopment of the site had been debated at a previous Council meeting and the impact that this had had on the Council’s working relationship with Bromsgrove District Housing Trust (BDHT).  Concerns were also raised about the length of time that had elapsed in terms of the development of the site.  However, Members were advised that the Council continued to maintain a positive working relationship with BDHT and by approving the next steps in the process the development would be able to move forward.

The recommendations were proposed by Councillor S. Webb and seconded by Councillor K. May.

On being put to the vote the recommendations were approved, with 2 Members voting against.

RESOLVED that

(1)      Officers appoint an external consultant to undertake a competitive exercise on behalf of the Council, for the disposal of the affordable housing units on the site to a registered provider; and

(2)      Delegated authority is given to the Head of Housing and the Head of Legal, Democratic and Property Services to negotiate the terms of disposal with the successful party and effect the disposal.

To consider the recommendations from the meeting(s) of the Cabinet held on 7^th July 2021.

Bromsgrove District Plan – Local Development Scheme

The Portfolio Holder for Planning and Regulatory Services presented the Local Development Scheme for Members’ consideration.  Council was advised that the report outlined the revised timetable for the Local Development Scheme but did not address wider areas of planning policy at this stage.  Any proposed changes to the Bromsgrove District Plan would be reported for Members’ consideration at meetings of the Strategic Planning Steering Group.

The recommendation was proposed by Councillor A. Kent and seconded by Councillor K. May.

RESOLVED that Bromsgrove District Council Local Development Scheme 2021 is approved as the Council’s programme for plan-making, effective as of 8^th July 2021.

As the meeting of Cabinet due to be held on 7^th July 2021 will be taking place after the agenda for the Council meeting has been published, the minutes of the Cabinet meeting will be published in a supplementary pack for consideration at Council.

Members considered the minutes of the Cabinet meeting held on Wednesday 7^th July 2021.

During consideration of this item, reference was made to the Cabinet’s debate in respect of the Equalities Task Group’s final report, as recorded at Minute Item No. 5/21.  Concerns were raised by the former Chairman of the group, Councillor P. McDonald, that there would be no official appeal process available to staff in respect of decisions about secondment placements.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting of the Cabinet held on 7^th July 2021 be noted.

To deal with any questions on notice from Members of the Council, in the order in which they have been received.

The Chairman opened the item by explaining that 7 questions had been submitted for consideration at the meeting.  For 2 of these questions, as permitted in the constitution, the questions would be asked by Members on behalf of those Councillors who had submitted the questions.  There would be no subsidiary questions but the group leaders had agreed on this occasion that a maximum of 30 minutes would be allocated to consideration of Questions on Notice.

Question submitted by Councillor J. King

Councillor R. Hunter asked the following question on behalf of Councillor J. King:

“In January 2020, this council resolved to develop a new open spaces and Section 106 policy to a establish a presumption that BDC will adopt land on new estates where it meets the adoptable standard as agreed by the Council. Could the Portfolio Holder for Planning please update council on progress made and advise when this policy will be published and implemented?”

The Portfolio Holder for Planning and Regulatory Services responded by commenting that Council had debated this issue at some length and determined that its ability to influence the matter was limited.  That said, in accordance with Council’s wishes, Officers had written to the Government requesting that they revisit the primary legislation that governed developers and third-party providers in respect of open space maintenance provisions. In addition, the work being undertaken by the Council in enabling the adoption of open spaces more generally, when and where appropriate, was on the Cabinet and Overview and Scrutiny Board’s work programmes and would be considered in September 2021.

Question Submitted by Councillor R. Hunter

“The rapid growth in house prices in rural areas during the pandemic has been widely reported in the media. One analysis suggested that house prices had rocketed by an average of 27% in Bromsgrove over the last twelve months. Has the time come to rethink our approach to new housing development in this district, focussing more on affordability for local residents?”

The Portfolio Holder for Planning and Regulatory Services responded by explaining that the current Bromsgrove District Plan had an Affordable Housing Policy (BDP8), which aimed to secure up to 40% affordable housing on greenfield sites and up to 30% on brownfield sites, for sites of 11 or more dwellings. These percentages secured homes to meet the needs of local residents on the authority’s Housing Waiting List. These percentages were set during the preparation of the current Bromsgrove District Plan and were subject to a Viability Assessment to ensure that what was required in terms of affordable housing provision was financially viable and therefore deliverable.

Since the start of the Plan period (1st April 2011), 665 affordable homes had been built, predominantly on sites allocated in the Plan. As of 1st April 2021, there were 280 affordable homes that had secured planning permission, some of which were under construction. This figure included 202 affordable homes at Whitford Road. The Perryfields site would secure an additional 394 affordable homes.

In addition to this, the current  ...  view the full minutes text for item 29\21

To deal with any motions on notice from Members of the Council, in the order in which they have been received.

The Chairman explained that 4 Motions on Notice had been received for consideration at the meeting.  However, Councillor M. Thompson had withdrawn his Motion and Councillor J. Till had requested that her Motion should be considered at the following Council meeting.  Group leaders had agreed prior to the meeting that up to 2 hours would be allocated to the consideration of Motions on Notice.

Appealing discretionary grant scheme decisions

Members considered the following Motion on Notice submitted by Councillor R. Hunter:

“Council welcomes the introduction of an appeals process for local business owners who have unsuccessfully applied to discretionary grant schemes such as Additional Restrictions Grant and Wet Led Pubs grant.

Council notes that this is not well known within communities and resolves to publish more detailed information including on the website and in outcome letters.

Council further resolves to report on the volumes and outcomes of appeals to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, for at least the next 6 months, or longer if the committee believes this is required.”

The Motion was proposed by Councillor Hunter and seconded by Councillor S. Robinson.

In proposing the Motion, Councillor Hunter noted that the Council had received over £32 million funding from the Government which had been distributed amongst eligible local businesses that had been impacted by the Covid-19 pandemic.  However, whilst some companies had successfully applied for grant funding other businesses had been unsuccessful.  Councillor Hunter expressed concerns that some businesses did not appear to be aware of their right to appeal.  In addition, he raised concerns about the eligibility criteria for the various forms of grant funding available to businesses and the extent to which these were meeting the needs of local companies. 

In seconding the Motion, Councillor Robinson commented that this was an important Motion.  Councillor Robinson praised the work of the Financial Services team to date in distributing grant funding to businesses but noted that she was keen to ensure that the Council did everything possible to support all businesses impacted by the pandemic, including those companies which had not been successful in bidding for funding.  The involvement of the Overview and Scrutiny Board in reviewing this matter would help to ensure that there was transparency in respect of the decisions on funding that had been made.

In responding to the Motion, the Portfolio Holder for Finance and Enabling noted that the Council had distributed over £32 million of Covid business grant funding to over 2,000 businesses.  Where an application for a mandatory grant was unsuccessful, for example where a business which had been able to remain open had applied for a closure grant, the applicant was automatically considered for the discretionary grant schemes. An appeals process was also in place. The Portfolio Holder for Finance and Enabling commented that he had ensured that action was taken to make people aware of the appeals process, for example through updating decision letters so that the appeal process was clearly set out within the decision and updating the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 30\21