Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors D. Hopkins, R. Lambert, P. McDonald and S. Robinson.

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.

Councillor R. Hunter declared an other registerable interest in respect of Minute Item No. 55/25 concerning the fourth Question on Notice for consideration at the meeting in respect of Nailer’s Yard in that he was employed by HS2.

[This Question on Notice was later withdrawn and was not considered at this meeting].

The minutes from the Council meetings held on 16th July and 3rd September 2025 were submitted for Members’ consideration.

During consideration of the minutes of the meeting of Council held on 16^th July 2025, Members raised concerns that the wording of the minutes did not reflect the language used by some Councillors in the debate.  In response, the Chairman acknowledged that it was not appropriate for that language to be used. 

In accordance with Procedure Rule 18.3 a recorded vote was taken in respect of the accuracy of the minutes of the Council meeting held on 16^th July 2025.

Members voting FOR the minutes as an accurate record:

Councillors S. Baxter, A. Dale, J. Elledge, D. Forsythe, E. Gray, H. Jones, B. Kumar, M. Marshall, K May, B. McEldowney, S. Nock, S. Peters, J. Stanley, K. Taylor, H. Warren-Clarke, S. Webb and P. Whittaker (17).

Members voting AGAINST the minutes as an accurate record:

Councillors S. Ammar, A. Bailes, R. Bailes, J. Clarke, S. Colella, C. Hotham, R. Hunter, D. Nicholl and J. Robinson (9).

Members who ABSTAINED in the vote on the accuracy of the minutes:

Councillor S. Evans (1).

Therefore, the vote confirming the accuracy of the minutes of the Council meeting held on 16^th July 2025 was carried.

During consideration of the minutes from the Council meeting held on 3^rd September 2025 a standards matter was raised in respect of the declarations made at that meeting. This matter wasaddressed outside of the meeting.

Members noted that the minutes of the meeting held on 3^rd September 2025 should state that this was an ‘Extraordinary’ meeting of Bromsgrove District Council.

RESOLVED that, subject to the amendment detailed in the preamble above, the minutes of the Council meetings held on 16th July and 3rd September 2025 be approved as a true and accurate record.

During this item, the Chairman made the following statement:

“I know this whole chamber will join me in sending our condolences on behalf of this Council to the Jewish community in Manchester, and Bromsgrove, along with the wider Jewish community, following the horrific terror attack that took place on Yom Kippur. Our thoughts are with everyone affected by the horrific act”.

The Head of Paid Service informed Members that an online all-Member briefing regarding Local Government Reorganisation had been arranged and was due to take place on 16^th October 2025 at 6pm. A request was made by Members that this session be recorded and made available to those Members who were unable to attend this briefing. It was confirmed that this request would be accommodated.

There were no updates 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.

Ms G. Crosby-Read asked the following question:

"Why are amendments not being made to ensure the regenerated park at Upland Grove is accessible?"

Additional comments made during consideration of this question included the importance of inclusive play provision during the regeneration of local parks and play spaces.

The Leader responded that there would be a written response provided after the meeting to the question by the Cabinet Member for Leisure and Climate Change in accordance with the Council Procedure Rules.

Ms K. Crosby-Read asked the following question:

"What are Bromsgrove council planning to do with the General Fund Reserve estimated to be approximately £12-14 million, which is over five times the amount of the 5% benchmark that the Government recommends being the minimum requirement needed to be held by a council?"

Additional comments made during consideration of this question included the outcome of any remaining funds left in Bromsgrove District Council’s General Fund when Local Government Reorganisation had been implemented.

The Leader responded that there would be a written response provided to the question after the Council meeting by the Cabinet Member for Finance in accordance with the Council Procedure Rules.

There have been two Urgent Decisions taken since the last ordinary meeting of the Council.

Members were informed that there had been two Urgent Decisions made since the last ordinary meeting of the Council. These were in respect of Nailers Yard and an extension to the deadline for the public consultation for the Local Development Plan.

During consideration of this item, Members queried who had signed the urgent decisions as the names of Members and Officers did not appear in the documentation provided at this meeting. It was confirmed that in line with the Council’s Urgency Procedure Rules the decisions had been signed off by the Chief Executive Officer, the Monitoring Officer, the Chairman of the Council, the Leader of the Council and the Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Board. In the case of the decision in respect of Nailer’s Yard it was clarified that the Vice-Chairman had signed off the Urgent Decision in place of the Chairman who had not been available when the decision was made.

Members were informed that a written record was kept of the approval from each of the signatories for audit purposes and that the decisions were available to view publicly on the Council’s website.

In terms of the scrutiny of the Urgent Decision in respect of Nailers Yard, and in line with the Council’s Urgency Procedure Rules, the Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Board had been consulted, along with the Group Leaders who were provided with an update on the status of Nailers Yard prior to the decision being made.

The timeline of the Urgent Decision in respect of Nailers Yard was queried by some Members, and it was clarified that as soon as the Leader had been notified of the necessity to release extra funding for this project, a Group Leaders meeting was convened as detailed above.

The Chairman informed Members that as this item was for noting, should Members have any further questions regarding this matter it could be raised outside of this meeting.

To receive a verbal update from relevant Group Leaders on changes to the following:

·       Substitutes of the Licensing Committee.

·       Membership of Overview and Scrutiny Board.

·       Any other Committees (as relevant).

Members were informed that Councillor S. Ammar was now the Liberal Democrat Member on the Overview and Scrutiny Board and that Councillor E. Gray was the named substitute for the Labour Group on the Licensing Committee.

It was noted that there were vacant seats on both the Overview and Scrutiny Board and Audit, Standards and Governance Committee and that it was hoped that this matter could be resolved in the near future.

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 the annual report for Members’ consideration. In doing so the following was highlighted:

·       The North Worcestershire Community Safety Partnership (NWCSP) had agreed a three-year action plan and the priorities identified as a result of data gathered. Following the retirement of the previous Chairman of the NWCSP, a new Chairman had been appointed. It was reported that the Executive Director for Environment and Communities of Bromsgrove District Council would carry out this role going forward.

·       Environmental Services had experienced a number of challenges over the previous year; however the team were well placed to continue to deliver the high-quality service to Bromsgrove and its residents. The new waste freighters were due to be delivered to the depot by December 2025 along with new pavement sweepers. It was confirmed that the depot was currently fully staffed.

·       Fly-tipping within the District remained a concern. However, it was noted that the Officer response team continued to respond effectively and quickly to instances of fly-tipping that were reported in order to ensure that Worcestershire Regulatory Services (WRS) Officers could carry out their investigations using evidence collected at the fly tipping site.

·       A weekly food collection service had been introduced during the year for businesses and would be offered to residents the following year. Some funding from the Government had been received to implement the food collection waste service. This would provide funding for the food caddies and vehicles. However, the amount, if any, of revenue funding to operate the service was still unknown.

·       A commercial waste service had been operating at the Council for ten years and a report was due to be considered at this meeting to consider the expansion of this service.

The Portfolio Holder for Environmental Services and Community Safety thanked the Community Safety and Environmental Services Teams for their hard work and commitment to providing the District with high quality services.

Following the presentation of the report, Members asked questions in several areas. These included:

·       Would the street information on the Council’s website be updated to inform residents when any replacement bins that had been missed during the deliveries would now take place? – Members were informed that any missed bins could only be identified if the Environmental Services Team were informed by residents. Therefore, it was requested that residents notified the team who would quickly rectify any missed replacement bin deliveries.

·       Were there any plans to provide any additional recycling bins in and around the town centre e.g. Sanders Park? – It was reported that these were relatively new bins and an expansion of availability of these bins would hopefully be carried out as soon as possible. A response from Officers would be requested and provided following the meeting. In terms of any communications in respect of the new recycling bins, it was hoped that these bins would increase awareness and educate residents of the necessity to place uncontaminated waste within them in order to increase recycling rates.

·       Tree Management  ...  view the full minutes text for item 52\25

To consider the recommendations from the meetings of the Cabinet held on 23^rd July 2025 and 10^th September 2025.

Members are asked to note that there was one further recommendation made at the Cabinet meeting held on 10^th September 2025 in respect of Urgent Business. This recommendation has already been agreed as an urgent decision on 16^th September 2025. A copy of the urgent decision can be viewed at item 7 on this agenda.

Members were asked to note that in addition to the recommendations considered at this meeting there was one further recommendation made at the Cabinet meeting held on 10^th September 2025 in respect of the Extension to the Consultation Period for Bromsgrove District Council’s Local Plan. This recommendation had already been agreed in accordance with the Council’s Urgency Procedure Rules on 16^th September 2025, as discussed earlier in the meeting and therefore would not be debated under this item.

Revocation of the Bromsgrove Road and Lickey End Air Quality Management Area (AQMA)

During consideration of this item, the Standing Orders were suspended until the end of the Council meeting in order to allow the Technical Services Manager from Worcestershire Regulatory Services (WRS) to speak on this technical report, if necessary.

The Cabinet Member for Planning and Regulatory Services presented the report for Members’ consideration. In doing so the following was highlighted:

• This report was good news for the District as it indicated an improvement in air quality within the AQMAs at these locations. It was necessary under legislation that if air quality within AQMAs improved consistently then the AQMA would need to be revoked.
• The improvement in air quality might be attributed to several factors including a decrease in traffic and increase in the use of electric vehicles and improvements in efficiency of diesel engine technology.
• Monitoring of locations continued even when AQMAs were being revoked. If any changes to the data were identified, there would be a review of the revocation of the AQMA at these sites.

Members queried how the continued monitoring would be undertaken in the future. The Technical Services Manager for WRS reported that there were three strands to delivery of the monitoring and air quality management work. These were as follows:

1. Diffusion tube networks would remain at the sites and would provide data in order to monitor levels of nitrogen dioxide (NO²). This monitoring equipment was also located at other sites within the District.
2. There were three real time air quality monitoring devices within the District.
3. An Air Quality Strategy was being developed currently in order to tackle air quality in areas within the District that were not subject to an AQMA. This was alongside a ‘behaviour change’ project currently underway across the County.

Members were keen to understand, if monitoring, as detailed above, was still due to be undertaken, how this would be different to the AQMA monitoring currently taking place? It was stated that there would not be the need for formal reporting of the monitoring data collected at these sites which currently was reported to DEFRA. However, the monitoring would remain.

The issue of particulate matter was raised and the monitoring that was currently in place for this type of air pollution. Some Members felt that an increase in this type of monitoring would be greatly beneficial for the District and could potentially be implemented as a community investment project ahead of Local Government Reorganisation. It was felt that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 53\25

Members queried the membership of the Town Centre Steering Group. It was reported that the membership of the Town Centre Steering Group had not been finalised, however this would include cross-party membership from Councillors of Bromsgrove District Council and other local partners.

The minutes of the Cabinet meetings held on 23rd July and 10th September 2025 were noted.

To deal with any questions on notice from Members of the Council, in the order in which they have been received. Each Member asking a question may ask up to one supplementary question which must be based on the original question or based on the answer to that question.

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.

Question submitted by Councillor A. Bailes

“At the Extraordinary Council meeting on 3rd September 2025, this Council, with the support of the Leader, voted to endorse the North and South Worcestershire Unitary Councils as part of the Local Government Reform process. However, just eight days later, the Leader, in her capacity as a County Councillor, voted against a motion proposing that the County Council support the North and South Worcestershire Unitary Councils.

Could the Leader please clarify this apparent contradiction and categorically confirm her position on supporting the North and South Worcestershire Unitary Councils?”

In responding to the question, the Leader of Bromsgrove District Council read out an extract from the opening statement included in the Motion on Notice considered at the Worcestershire County Council (WCC) meeting, as detailed in Councillor A. Bailes’s question. The extract read as follows:

“Following the outcome of the election in which the Conservatives lost their majority fighting on a platform of one unitary authority, for the whole of Worcestershire the County Council….’

The Leader clarified that the above statement was not correct and that she had not undertaken her WCC election campaign in agreement with a One Worcestershire model of local government. The context of the vote on the Motion on Notice at WCC required those supporting it to have campaigned on a one Unitary Authority proposal and, it was confirmed, she did not. 

Councillor A. Bailes asked a supplementary question in respect of this matter.

In doing so, he stated that at the [Extraordinary Council] meeting held on 3^rd September 2025, the Leader had voted for a two unitary Authority approach to local government as a result of listening to the residents, but he suggested that the situation now appeared to have changed.  He then asked the following supplementary question: “Could the Leader confirm when the shift occurred and why?”

The Leader confirmed that no shift had occurred and that at each different meeting a decision was required following consideration of the information provided. She expressed the view that it was important to make decisions based on the evidence provided and this was the approach that she had taken. The Leader confirmed that she was very willing to explore the option of a North and South Authority approach to local government and she was committed to the best outcome for the residents within the District whatever model of unitary governance was eventually adopted.

Question submitted by Councillor S. Colella

“Can the Portfolio Holder and Cabinet Member for Leisure and Climate Change please confirm whether the Bromsgrove Town Centre Christmas lights turn on is cancelled or not cancelled please.

Residents have the right to know what’s really happening because no sooner had the press release gone out from yourself and the Deputy Leader of the Council stating that it was cancelled, there was a further press release from the Leader of the Council that she was looking into the cancellation and was doing everything she could to get it re-instated.”  ...  view the full minutes text for item 55\25

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.

Prior to the consideration of the Motions on Notice, the Chairman announced it had been agreed that the first Motion on Notice would not be considered at this meeting due to the Council meeting taking place during the pre-election period for the Worcestershire County Council by-election due to take place on 30^th October 2025. Due to the exceptional circumstances of the Motion not being considered in a timely manner at the Council meeting on 16^th July 2025 and the extraordinary circumstances of it not being considered at this meeting, the Chairman had exercised his discretion, and, in this instance, the Motion would now be considered at the Extraordinary meeting of the Council on 19^th November 2025. It was reiterated that this was an exceptional circumstance and would not set a precedent for future Extraordinary Council meetings.

Members raised their concerns in respect of Motions on Notice that dealt with WCC matters considered previously during a pre-election period. The Chairman explained that he had been given advice by the Monitoring Officer, who had indicated that it was not appropriate to debate the first Motion on Notice included in the agenda at this time.

Council considered the following Motion on Notice, submitted by Councillor E. Gray:

West Mercia Police and Crime Panel

"The Council calls on the Bromsgrove representative on the West Mercia Police and Crime Panel to actively address the issue of cross-border crime and anti-social behaviour affecting Bromsgrove. It is requested that our representative formally raises the matter with the Police Crime Commissioner (PCC), emphasising the need for improved collaboration between West Mercia Police and West Midlands Police.”

In proposing the Motion on Notice, Councillor E. Gray stated that the purpose of the Motion was practical and served to enhance the intelligence service of cross border policing within Worcestershire and the neighbouring police forces, including West Midlands Police Force.

It was suggested that the Council’s representative on the West Mercia Police and Crime Panel should outline at a future meeting of the Panel, the potential for Rubery Police Station to be used as a hub for crime intelligence. Furthermore, it was suggested that monthly meetings be arranged in order for intelligence sharing to take place with representatives of West Mercia and West Midlands Police. This would provide the opportunity for those in attendance to look at current issues and any emerging issues and tackle them more effectively.

Following consultation with residents and local youth groups, it was noted that there were concerns regarding a lack of Police presence in local areas and that there had been an increase of Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) particularly in the early evening. It was reported that this could have been as a result of Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs) not working certain hours resulting in a lack of Police presence in certain areas at critical times.

Councillor H. Jones, as the Council’s representative on the West Mercia Police and Crime Panel, could be the advocate for this kind of collaborative working which  ...  view the full minutes text for item 56\25

There was no Urgent Business on this occasion.