Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received on behalf of Councillors J. Till, K. Van Der Plank and P. Whittaker.

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.

Councillors K. May and M. Sherrey declared other disclosable interests in Minute Item No. 41/22 – Minutes of the Cabinet meeting held on 6^th July 2022 - in their capacity as the Councillors for Belbroughton and Romsley ward.  This declaration was made in relation to Cabinet’s consideration of the nomination of Romsley Methodist Church as an asset of community value.  They both remained present during consideration of the minutes of the Cabinet meeting.

The minutes of the meeting of Council held on 22^nd June 2022 were submitted.

During consideration of the minutes of the previous meeting of Council, the suggestion was made that the word “mitigate” should have been used rather than the word “reduce” in relation to decreasing costs by letting out space to external organisations at Parkside.

RESOLVED that, subject to the amendment detailed in the preamble above, the minutes of the meeting of Council held on 22^nd June 2022 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 at the meeting.

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 consideration at this meeting.

The Chairman confirmed that there had been no urgent decisions taken since the previous meeting of Council.

Members are asked to note the appointments of named substitutes to the following Committees

·             Audit, Standards and Governance Committee – Councillors S. Baxter. A. English and C. Hotham.

·             Licensing Committee (not including the Licensing Sub-Committees) – Councillors C. Hotham and K. Van Der Plank

·             Overview and Scrutiny Board - Councillors S. Douglas, A. English, R. Jenkins, S. Robinson and K. Van Der Plank.

·             Planning Committee – Councillors S. Baxter and C. Hotham.

Members noted nominations of substitute Members from the Bromsgrove Independent and Liberal Democrat Groups to various Committees.  Members were advised to note that Councillor C. Hotham was a Member, rather than a substitute Member, of the Licensing Committee.

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 Housing and Health and Well Being presented an annual report which outlined the work that had been undertaken within the remit of her portfolio over the preceding 12 months.

Council was informed that the portfolio covered a range of areas that involved the Council working closely with many partner organisations.  For example, the Sports Development team had worked closely with NHS bodies in respect of the provision of new exercise classes and on social prescribing.  The Portfolio Holder for Housing and Health and Well Being expressed her gratitude to the Bromsgrove District Housing Trust (BDHT) for their provision of office space free of charge for initiatives, such as St Basil’s Bistro, which helped young people develop healthy cooking skills.  The Bromsgrove Partnership Manager had an integral role in terms of managing the Council’s working relationship and joint activities with partner organisations and she was thanked for her hard work.

A Dementia Meeting service was available in the District for residents with dementia and their family members to attend.  Support was made available to people with dementia and their carers at these meetings.  The example of a gentleman with dementia who had attended the service and had always enjoyed the refreshments was highlighted as a positive example of the outcomes of this work.

After the report had been presented, Members discussed the following points in detail:

·             The work that was undertaken by partner organisations in the District, particularly the contributions from Voluntary and Community Sector (VCS) organisations, which helped to address issues experienced by residents in respect of their health and well being.

·             The activities that had been delivered for the social prescribing model of health service delivery and the extent to which communities located outside of the Bromsgrove Primary Care Network (PCN) benefited from this work.  Members commented that GP practices in locations, such as Alvechurch and Wythall, were not in the Bromsgrove PCN.  The Leader advised that this issue had been raised at meetings of the Bromsgrove Partnership Board where it had been noted that 25 per cent of the population in the District were not covered by the Bromsgrove PCN.

·             The supported accommodation available to Bromsgrove residents.  Council was informed that BDHT provided supported accommodation to residents where needed.

·             The new offer of a free Lifeline Service for six weeks and the arrangement in place should customers be unable to pay for this service at the end of that trial period.  The Portfolio Holder for Housing and Health and Well Being explained that discussions would be held with the customers in an attempt to provide a solution and Members were advised that further information on this subject would be provided after the meeting.

·             The extent to which bed and breakfast accommodation was used to house people at risk of homelessness in the District.  Council was advised that there was emergency bed and breakfast accommodation available on standby in case it needed to be used.  Members were advised that further information would be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 39\22

To consider the recommendations from the meeting of the Cabinet held on 6^th July 2022.

The Chairman advised that a recommendation had been made at the meeting of the Cabinet held on 7^th July 2022, which had been highlighted for Council’s consideration.

Bromsgrove and Redditch Duty to Co-operate

The Portfolio Holder for Planning and Regulatory Services presented a report on the subject of Bromsgrove District Council’s duty to co-operate with Redditch Borough Council.  Members were advised that this report had been considered at a recent meeting of the Strategic Planning Steering Group (SPSG), to which all Members had been invited.

Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council had both commissioned Housing and Economic Development Needs Assessments (HEDNAs) to review housing needs moving forward.  This had identified that housing needs for Redditch Borough had changed since a previous assessment was undertaken and there was no longer a need for so many houses to be developed in the Borough.  For this reason, houses that had been due to be developed in Bromsgrove District to meet housing needs in the Borough were no longer required by Redditch and Redditch Borough Council had agreed to return these housing figures to Bromsgrove.  In this context, Bromsgrove District Council could determine how these houses should be allocated.

Bromsgrove District Council did not have a shared Local Plan with Redditch Borough Council and the two authorities’ Local Plans were being developed separately.  However, there was a need for the two Councils to continue to work closely together to ensure that there was a shared understanding about local housing needs.  The two Councils could also work together on a shared approach in response to the housing needs of the wider Greater Birmingham and Black Country Housing Market Areas (GBBCHMA).  The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) helped to clarify the Councils’ shared understanding on these points.

Members subsequently discussed the content of the report in detail and in doing so questioned the number of houses that had originally been due to be developed in Bromsgrove District to meet the previous housing needs in Redditch Borough.  Council was advised that this had involved the development of 2,241 houses in Bromsgrove District.

Reference was made to the MOU and the extent to which, by co-operating with Redditch Borough Council, there was a risk that Bromsgrove District Council would be expected to meet requirements for Redditch Borough Council to provide housing for the GBBCHMA.  The Portfolio Holder for Planning and Regulatory Services clarified that the MOU simply required the two authorities to co-operate.  There was a legal requirement on Councils, in terms of a duty to co-operate and the MOU enabled the Council to meet this legal obligation.    

Concerns were raised about the Council’s shared service arrangements with Redditch Borough Council and the implications that this might have in respect of meeting the needs of Bromsgrove residents.  In addition, concerns were raised about the speed with which the Council was progressing with work on a strategic transport assessment and the extent to which this would inform work on the Local Plan.  Members were informed that two separate  ...  view the full minutes text for item 40\22

The minutes of the meeting of Cabinet held on Wednesday 6^th July 2022 were noted.

(Prior to consideration of this item, Councillors K. May and M. Sherrey declared other disclosable interests in their capacity as the Councillors for Belbroughton and Romsley ward.  This declaration was made in relation to Cabinet’s consideration of the nomination of Romsley Methodist Church as an asset of community value.  They both remained present during consideration of the minutes of the Cabinet meeting.)

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 seven Questions on Notice had been received for 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 A. English

“Many millions of pounds have been spent on the new Bromsgrove railway station. However, there has been a significant reduction in service running south since its construction and now recent timetable changes mean delays for those wanting to travel from Worcester to Barnt Green, Alvechurch and Redditch.  Does the Leader share my disappointment at the apparent downgrading of Bromsgrove station and what actions has the leader taken to improve services going south and to instigate a return of the timely Barnt Green and Alvechurch connection?”

The Leader responded by commenting that it was disappointing that the services mentioned had suffered reductions in recent timetable changes.

This was a matter for the West Midlands Rail Executive and the Train Operating Companies to address.  

Council was asked to note that through the County Council, the matter of the timetable changes had been raised with the West Midlands Rail Executive.  This included the matter of the connectivity with the services from Worcester through Bromsgrove onto the Redditch branch of the Cross City Line.  It had also been raised by the Rail User Groups.  Furthermore, the Leader was aware that Worcestershire County Council was actively engaged with promoting improved services in Worcestershire through various channels including the rail industry bodies on which they were represented.

Members could raise concerns regarding services directly with the Train Operating Companies and, where appropriate, the West Midlands Rail Executive.

Question submitted by Councillor H. Rone-Clarke

“Many residents are concerned about the number of cases reported to the RSPCA each year of pets being given as prizes via fairgrounds, social media and other channels in England. This issue, we know, predominantly concerns goldfish. Further, many cases of pets being given as prizes may go unreported each year.

Will the leader commit to banning outright, the giving of live animals as prizes, in any form, on Bromsgrove District Council land and write to the UK Government, urging an outright ban on the giving of live animals as prizes on both public and private land?”

The Portfolio Holder for Leisure, Cultural Services and Climate Change responded by explaining that he had raised a similar issue in a Motion considered at a Council meeting in 2016.  This Motion, which had proposed that pets should be banned as prizes, had been agreed by Council.  This approach had subsequently been enshrined in the Council’s Animal Welfare Policy.  At paragraph 4.0 of this policy, it was stated that the Council prohibited circuses or events who hired Council land or used the authority’s premises as a venue, to use animals, birds or fish as prizes.

Question submitted by Councillor P. McDonald

"Will this Council abide by the Equalities Act making sure  ...  view the full minutes text for item 42\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 explained that three Motions on Notice had been received for consideration at the meeting.  However, prior to the meeting, Councillor H. Rone-Clarke had confirmed that he was withdrawing his Motion.  Therefore, only two Motions were due to be debated at the meeting.

Parkside Running Costs

Council considered the following Motion on Notice that was submitted by Councillor P. McDonald:

"Forking out £240,000 running costs for Parkside that rattles plus £138,000 to Redditch Council, to many is seen as financial incompetence and a cavalier approach to spending the hard-earned money of its residents at a time of a cost-of-living crisis.

We therefore call upon the Council to form a cross-party task group to carry out a full investigation into financial arrangements with Redditch Council: which it would seem to have left Bromsgrove Council with running costs of a £240,000; for what is a mainly an unused building while at the same time paying out £138,000 for use of Redditch Council's premises."

The Motion was proposed by Councillor McDonald and seconded by Councillor Rone-Clarke.

In proposing the Motion, Councillor McDonald raised concerns that Parkside cost the Council £240,000 per annum to maintain, particularly at a time when many staff were working from home.  Concerns were raised that the Council was providing a financial contribution to Redditch Borough Council to cover the costs of accommodating staff working in shared services and based at Redditch Town Hall when space remained available to accommodate staff at Parkside.  Councillor McDonald also raised concerns about the Council meeting these costs at a time of a cost of living crisis, when many residents would benefit from financial assistance and other support.  Residents paid Council Tax and fees for many Council services and it was important to ensure that there was transparency in respect of how this funding was spent and that value for money (vfm) was achieved.  Councillor McDonald expressed concerns about the implications of shared service arrangements for the potential for staff to meet the needs of Bromsgrove residents and he suggested that there was the possibility that Redditch Borough would benefit from these arrangements at the expense of Bromsgrove District.  A cross party working group could investigate this situation further and determine whether best value was being achieved for the Council.

In seconding the Motion, Councillor Rone-Clarke expressed concerns about the use of public funds on the maintenance of Parkside and in shared service arrangements with Redditch Borough Council.  Members were advised that there was a need for due diligence and a cross party review would be able to ensure transparency of management of the Council’s finances.  Councillor Rone-Clarke also suggested that this review would provide the public with reassurance about the work of the Council.  Members were asked to note that the Motion was not calling for an end to shared services but, rather, for these arrangements to be reviewed.

In response to the Motion, the Portfolio Holder for Finance and Governance commented that he refuted claims that the Council  ...  view the full minutes text for item 43\22