Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received on behalf of Councillors S. Baxter, S. Colella, S. Hession, R. Jenkins, H. Jones, A. Kent, P. McDonald and M. Thompson.

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 Annual Council meeting held on Wednesday 18^th May 2022 were submitted.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the Annual Council meeting held on Wednesday 18^th May 2022 be approved as a true and correct record.

The Chairman advised that the Chief Executive had participated in a fundraising exercise recently that had been designed to support the Chairman’s charity, the Primrose Hospice.  The Chief Executive was thanked for participating in this exercise.

The Head of Paid Service confirmed that he had no announcements to make on this occasion.

The Leader confirmed that she had no announcements to make 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.

Mr C. Cooke asked the following question:

“In a recent on-line meeting the question of how to promote community Bromsgrove events and other things (including those run by the Council) came up and the benefit of public notice boards in prominent places such as the High Street.  Currently there are a few shops and supermarkets with notice boards but these are subject to maintenance problems and abuse.  There is a fabled public notice board in Sanders Park but it is not known whose responsibility it is to maintain that and keep it up to date. I am aware that the Council has a presence on Social Media but that only gets to a relatively small section of the population. 

Physical notice boards are always a problem because they need regular updating. I have in mind an electronic notice board because the notices can be easily changed and controlled remotely by a Council employee.  It is possible to buy robust stand-alone hardware that would need to be securely attached.  It would also have to be positioned carefully in full view of security cameras as it would inevitably attract abuse. Alternatively, you might consider working with a couple of shops to provide electronic notice boards inside their windows.  There are elegant systems and the dedicated computer power is very low (one system uses a Raspberry Pi computer not much bigger than a debit card.)

Can the Council provide suitable public-accessible notice boards on the High Street to promote community events?”

The Chairman responded by thanking Mr Cooke for the information and ideas provided. It was clarified that the Council’s Leisure Team had been assessing the option of electronic noticeboards in parks only. The Bromsgrove Centres Manager would work with the Leisure team to assess the potential of also introducing these on the High Street.

Members were informed that no urgent decisions had been taken since the previous meeting of Council.

The Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Board in the 2021/22 municipal year, Councillor C. Hotham, presented the Board’s Annual Report for Members’ consideration.

Council was informed that the Board had investigated a range of matters during the year, as detailed in the report.  In addition, there had been three Task Group exercises, focusing on Equalities, Flooding and Libraries.  Recommendations had been made by each of these groups, which had received a mixed response from Cabinet.  Members were asked to note that Task Groups were cross party teams of Councillors investigating subjects in detail over a period of time and their findings needed to be considered carefully when presented for the consideration of Cabinet, which ultimately determined whether recommendations made through the scrutiny process should be agreed.

During consideration of this item, reference was made to the impact of the Flooding Task Group, with Members noting that the group’s recommendations had not been endorsed.  Instead, there had been a separate review of flooding undertaken by officers at the same time as the Task Group exercise which had recently concluded.  Whilst the group’s recommendation to employ two extra members of staff had not been agreed by Cabinet due to concerns about the financial costs and the amount of work available for them, Members were advised that external contractors were undertaking work on behalf of Bromsgrove District Council.  The Overview and Scrutiny Board would receive an update on the impact of this work in due course and alternative options to working with contractors could be explored further by the Board, including the potential to recommend that new staff be employed in this field in future who could be commissioned to also provide this work to other Councils.

Reference was made to the attendance by Officers at meetings of the Overview and Scrutiny Board during the year.  Whilst Members had been required by law to attend meetings of the Board in person in order to participate in the debate and vote on items, it was noted that Officers had been permitted to participate in meetings remotely.  The suggestion was made that it would be helpful for more officers to attend meetings in person in future.  However, Members also commented that remote attendance by Officers at meetings had been one of several mitigating measures put in place to help prevent the spread of Covid-19.  Whilst nationally Covid-19 mitigation measures were no longer a legal requirement, the illness remained endemic and remote attendance by Officers helped to reduce the risks of transmission. 

Members were asked to note that Cabinet recognised the important role of Overview and Scrutiny in the local democratic process.  Cabinet always dedicated time to considering the findings of scrutiny Task Groups and, where considered appropriate, endorsed scrutiny recommendations.  However, there were also times where Cabinet would conclude that it was not appropriate to agree to some or all of the recommendations that were proposed by a scrutiny Task Group.

Councillor Hotham concluded by thanking other members of the Board for their hard  ...  view the full minutes text for item 23\22

Members are asked to note that this report focuses on community safety only.  Environmental Services were the subject of a separate report from the Portfolio Holder for Environmental Services and Community Safety considered in January 2022.

Up to 30 minutes is allowed for this item; no longer than 10 minutes for  presentation of the report and then up to 3 minutes for each question to be put and answered.

The Portfolio Holder for Environmental Services and Community Safety presented a report outlining work during the year that had been undertaken in respect of Community Safety.  In presenting the report, Members were reminded that a separate report on the subject of Environmental Services had been presented in January 2022.

Officers were thanked for their hard work continuing to deliver services despite the challenges posed by the Covid-19 pandemic.  Members were asked to note the important role of CCTV cameras in relation to community safety and that three redeployable CCTV cameras were being used to help tackle crime.  The Council’s CCTV team worked closely with the police, although use of CCTV camera footage was subject to the General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR).

During consideration of this item, the following specific points were subsequently discussed by Members in detail:

·             The CCTV cameras used by the Council that were linked to a central control room and the extent to which any cameras were owned by the authority that were not connected to this central point.  Members were advised that the CCTV cameras used by the Environmental Services team based at the depots was maintained on a separate system and not connected to the central control room.

·             The multi-agency risk assessments in respect of domestic abuse cases and the extent to which Council Officers worked with police to address these cases.  Council was advised that funding was available to help address domestic abuse cases.

·             The work that had been undertaken to provide support to young people at risk of becoming victims of crime.  The Portfolio Holder for Environmental Services and Community Safety clarified that funding had been made available by the West Mercia Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) to help provide support to young people at risk of becoming victims of crime.

·             The recent reports of a bicycle having been stolen from School Drive in Bromsgrove which had not been picked up on CCTV due to overhanging trees.  Members were informed that the Portfolio Holder for Environmental Services and Community Safety would raise this with relevant officers for further investigation.

·             The number of burglaries that were solved across the District and the proportion of these burglaries that were attended by the police.  The Portfolio Holder for Environmental Services and Community Safety agreed to request further information from officers on this subject.  However, Members were asked to note that crime statistics of this nature were available on a ward basis on the Police website.

·             The work that was being undertaken to address Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) in the District.

RESOLVED that the report be noted.

The Portfolio Holder for Finance and Governance explained that the Executive Director of Resources, who was also the Council’s Section 151 Officer, had resigned and would be leaving the Council’s employment soon.  There was a legal requirement for the authority to have a Section 151 Officer and it was proposed that the Council’s Interim Deputy Section 151 Officer should be appointed to the position of Interim Section 151 Officer for a period of 12 months as a replacement.

There was a new Head of Financial and Customer Services due to commence employment with the Council in June 2022.  However, it was not considered to be appropriate to appoint this officer as the Council’s Section 151 Officer at this early stage.  By contrast, the Interim Deputy Section 151 Officer had gained experience over a number of months working for the authority and would help to ensure service continuity. 

During consideration of this item, questions were raised about whether further recruitment would be required to fill the position of Deputy Section 151 Officer, should these proposals be agreed.  Members were informed that no further recruitment would be required at this time.

The recommendation was proposed by Councillor G. Denaro and seconded by Councillor K. May.

RESOLVED to approve thearrangements for an Interim Chief Finance Officer and Section 151 Officer for Bromsgrove District Council for a period of 12 months (with any extension subject to review). 

To consider the recommendations from the meeting of the Cabinet held on 3^rd May and 1^st June 2022.

The Chairman explained that recommendations had been made at meetings of Cabinet held on 3^rd May and 1^st June 2022 which had been highlighted for Members’ consideration at the meeting.

Treasury Management and Investment Strategy

The Portfolio Holder for Finance and Governance presented the Treasury Management and associated Investment, Capital and Minimum Revenue Provision Strategies.  Council was advised that these strategies detailed how the authority would deal with its debt and investments in the following financial year.  This included the Council’s prudential indicators, which local authorities had been required since 2003 to review, setting out the limits on borrowing and investing within which the Council needed to operate.

There was a statutory requirement for the Council to set these strategies on an annual basis, to report on progress on a half yearly basis and to produce a financial outturn report at the end of the year.  All of these reports needed to be considered at a meeting of Council.  Should the authority breach any of the prudential indicators, there was a requirement for Council to approve any subsequent changes.

Council was informed that the most significant change for the year ahead was that Councils could not invest for yield and the Section 151 Officer needed to certify for this.  Should the Council be found to be investing for yield, the authority would not be able to use debt financing from the Public Works Loan Board (PWLB) ever again.  This debt was significantly cheaper than commercial debt and was a cornerstone of Council investment strategy across the country.

Bromsgrove District Council had not taken out new long-term debt for some years.  However, new capital works were set out in the authority’s Capital Financing Requirement.  Even in cases where these works were financed from balances or working capital, there was a requirement for a Minimum Revenue Account (MRA) repayment.

The Capital Strategy provided further information about the Council’s plans for borrowing to fund the authority’s capital programme as well as the measures that would be taken to finance this work.  This included the Burcot Lane and Levelling Up regeneration schemes.  Information was included in respect of the Capital Financing Requirement, which was the figure on which Minimum Revenue Provision repayments were based.  In addition, Council debt levels were highlighted in the strategy.  The Council could not breech authorised limits and could only breech operational boundary limits for short periods of time.

The Treasury Management Strategy detailed the overall economic position.  Since the strategy was drafted, there had been changes to the economy due to the impact of the war in Ukraine.  Officers were anticipating that this would significantly impact on projected interest rates in the short and medium-term. 

Further information was provided about how the Council invested surplus funds.  Refinancing indicators had not been changed and were set at 100 per cent to allow for the greatest level of flexibility due to the nature of the economy.

The Minimum Revenue Position (MRP) Policy had not changed.  However, the Council would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 26\22

The Chairman of the Audit, Standards and Governance Committee in the 2021/22 municipal year, Councillor L. Mallett, presented the Committee’s Annual Report for Members’ consideration.

Council was advised that the Audit, Standards and Governance Committee had a very important role.  The Committee ensured the independence of controls on corporate governance and that appropriate mechanisms were in place at the Council to manage the authority’s finances and monitor risk mitigation.  There had been challenges during the year, mainly due to the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic.  The pandemic had also impacted on the audit function at the Council.

Councillor Mallett thanked the other members of the Audit, Standards and Governance Committee for their hard work during the year.  Representatives of the external auditors, Grant Thornton, the Internal Audit team, Democratic Services and the Financial Services team were also thanked for their hard work and support.

During consideration of this item, the Portfolio Holder for Finance and Governance thanked the Audit, Standards and Governance Committee for their work in 2021/22.  Members were advised that the work of the Committee was vital and the Portfolio Holder for Finance and Governance highlighted his plans to improve the presentation of figures to the Committee in the 2022/23 municipal year.

RESOLVED that the Audit, Standards and Governance Committee’s Annual Report for 2021/22 be noted.

The minutes of the meetings of the Cabinet held on Tuesday 3^rd May and Wednesday 1^st June 2022 were noted.

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

A period of up to 15 minutes is allocated for the asking and answering of questions.  This may be extended at the discretion of the Chairman with the agreement of the majority of those present.

The Chairman explained that 8 Questions on Notice had been received for consideration at the meeting and would be considered in the order in which they had been submitted.  A maximum of 15 minutes was allocated to consideration of these questions and the answers provided and there were no supplementary questions.

Question submitted by Councillor K. Van Der Plank

“It now seems probable that this council will end the financial year 2021/2022 with a surplus of around £370k. So is it now time to revisit the Independent groups budget suggestion of spending £70,000 on the reintroduction of the hugely popular and useful community grants fund which supported many local good and worthy causes?”

The Leader responded by commenting that the forecast outturn position for 2021/22 was better than anticipated at the time of setting the 2022/23 budget. This would mean that the opening balance of the Council’s General Fund would be healthier than anticipated, which would help the Council’s challenging financial position.

The Leader stressed, however, that other areas within the budget were likely to perform worse than anticipated in the 2022/23 financial year. For example, the inflationary assumptions made when setting the budget with regard to pay inflation (of 2 per cent) and non-pay inflation (of circa 5 per cent) were likely to come under significant pressure during the period. These pressures would be closely monitored but were likely to lead to significant overspends in some areas.

Members were also asked to note that the Council still had an underlying gap between spend and income over the medium term. As previously reported in the Budget, the Council’s Medium Term Financial Plan forecasted the authority’s General Fund position to decline significantly from a balance of over £4 million to £1.046 million at the end of 2024/25, a level which was below minimum adequate levels.

The Council would therefore need to continue to take steps to reduce expenditure and/or increase income to remain financially secure moving forward.  This financial reality made any decision to spend additional monies very difficult as the Council continued to aim to balance the budget.

Question submitted by Councillor S. Douglas

“It is disappointing news that WCC have been unsuccessful in their bid for £84m to invest in bus service. I recall that the expected success of this bid was the reasoning behind the refusal to move forward with the Independent budget proposal to fund a business case to investigate the feasibility of BDC running its own local bus services to connect the outlying centres with Bromsgrove.  Will the controlling group now consider writing to the County Council to request that they review the services in Bromsgrove with the potential to provide free bus travel at the weekends?”

The Leader responded by advising that she shared Councillor Douglas’s disappointment that Worcestershire County Council had been unsuccessful in their bid for major funding to invest in bus services. Whilst the Council wanted to support all residents with access, connectivity and public transport opportunities throughout the District, it was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 29\22

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.

The Chairman advised that 2 Motions on Notice had been received for consideration at the meeting.

Levelling Up Funding in Bromsgrove

Council considered the following Motion on Notice that was submitted by Councillor S. Robinson:

“Keep Bromsgrove’s levelling up funding in Bromsgrove

Council calls on the Leader of Bromsgrove District Council to lobby Worcestershire County Council to reinvest the proceeds from the sale of the Bromsgrove Library site into improvements for Bromsgrove High Street.”

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

In proposing the Motion, Councillor Robinson commented that she welcomed the funding that had been received from the Government for High Street improvement works as well as the work that had already been undertaken by Bromsgrove District Council and Worcestershire County Council in respect of High Street improvements. The purpose of the Motion was to ensure that funding that had been received by Worcestershire County Council for the sale of the former library site, was reinvested in Bromsgrove town centre.  The High Street was a significant hub in Bromsgrove town centre, where businesses were based and events took place.  There was a need to ensure that the appearance of the High Street was presented well.  Councillor Robinson expressed the view that unfortunately there were some issues with the appearance of the High Street, for example, the tarmac on the road was in a poor condition, following work by utilities companies and, although work was being undertaken to address this situation, more could be done to improve the urban environment.

In seconding the Motion, Councillor Hunter commented that the Motion did not propose that the money from the sale of the former library site should be taken from Worcestershire County Council.  Instead, the Motion was calling for Bromsgrove District Council to ask Worcestershire County Council to invest the income from the sale in Bromsgrove town centre.  Councillor Hunter expressed the view that the urban environment, including street furniture, was in need of improvement and that there needed to be an increase in investment in the town centre.  Concerns were also raised about the condition of bus shelters situated in the town centre and the need for these to be improved.

During consideration of this item, an amendment was proposed to the Motion.  This amendment was proposed by Councillor L. Mallet and seconded by Councillor H. Rone-Clarke. 

The wording of the amended Motion was proposed as detailed below:

“Keep Bromsgrove’s levelling up funding in Bromsgrove

Council calls on the Leader of Bromsgrove District Council to lobby Worcestershire County Council to reinvest the proceeds from the sale of the Bromsgrove Library site into improvements for Bromsgrove High Street and the Leader and relevant Portfolio Holder should come to the next Council meeting to speak on the schemes that are planned for the High Street.”

In proposing the amendment, Councillor Mallett commented that in previous years funding had been allocated to works, although he expressed the view that this had not always achieved best value  ...  view the full minutes text for item 30\22