Agenda and minutes
PDF 598 KBVenue: Microsoft Teams - Virtual. View directions
Contact: Amanda Scarce Jess Bayley
| No. | Item | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
To receive apologies for absence Minutes: There were no apologies for absence.
|
|||||||||||||
|
Declarations of Interest 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. Minutes: There were no declarations of interest.
|
|||||||||||||
|
Minutes: Members considered the minutes of the meeting of Council held on Wednesday, 21st October 2020.
RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting of the Council held on Wednesday, 21st October be approved as a true and correct record.
|
|||||||||||||
|
To receive any announcements from the Chairman and/or Head of Paid Service Minutes: The Chairman advised Council that he had no announcements to make on this occasion.
The Head of Paid Service also confirmed that he had no announcements to make at the meeting.
|
|||||||||||||
|
To receive any announcements from the Leader Minutes: The Leader noted that it had been a difficult year due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Bromsgrove District had been placed in Tier Two following the second national lockdown and she encouraged everyone to follow the guidelines. The Leader welcomed the news that the Covid-19 vaccine produced by Pfizer and BioNTech had been approved for use by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) that day.
During consideration of this item, the political party group leaders joined the Leader of the Council in thanking Council staff, elected Members and key workers for their hard work during the Covid-19 pandemic. Reference was also made to the temperature that the Pfizer BioNTech vaccine needed for storage purposes and questions were raised about how the vaccine would be transported safely to vulnerable residents who might struggle to attend the vaccination centre at the Artrix. Officers undertook to obtain further information on this subject for Members’ consideration.
Clarification was requested about the action that could be taken to enable Districts in Tiers 2 and 3 to be placed in Tier 1 in the future. The Leader explained that she attended meetings of the Worcestershire Local Engagement Board where the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic locally was discussed. There would be the potential to lobby for Worcestershire to be placed in Tier 1. However, risk factors and local Covid-19 case numbers would be taken into account when decisions were taken about the tier in which the county should be placed moving forward.
|
|||||||||||||
|
To receive comments, questions or petitions from members of the public 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.
Minutes: There were no comments, questions or petitions from members of the public on this occasion.
|
|||||||||||||
|
Additional documents:
Minutes: Members noted a number of urgent decisions that had been taken since the previous meeting of Council in respect of the following matters:
· Section 106 funding for 76, Sherwood Road · Covid Impact - Subsidy to the Leisure Service Provider SLM (Everyone Active) · Worcestershire Business Rates Pool 2021/22 · Green Homes Local Authority Delivery Grant Funding · Licensing (Miscellaneous) Sub-Committees A and B
It was noted that a significant number of urgent decisions had been taken in 2020. Many of these urgent decisions had been made due to the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic.
Members welcomed the urgent decision in respect of the Green homes grant funding and requested further information on this subject for the consideration of local residents. Questions were also raised regarding the ways in which the availability of the grant funding had been communicated to eligible householders. The Monitoring Officer confirmed that the lead officer for the Green Homes grant funding would be asked to share this information with Members.
However, concerns were raised about the frequency with which urgent decisions were being taken and the potential impact on the transparency of the decision-making process. In particular, reference was made to the urgent decision in respect of the Worcestershire Business Rates Pool 2021/22, where a decision had been recorded as taking place on 22nd October 2020, the day after a full Council meeting. The Monitoring Officer confirmed that this decision would be checked. Members were advised that the Council aimed to minimise the number of urgent decisions that were taken and all of these decisions were published on the Council’s website to ensure transparency.
Reference was also made to the potential for urgent decisions to be considered through the Council’s Overview and Scrutiny process. It was noted that the urgent decisions were signed off by the Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Board and questions were raised about the extent to which these decisions could be subject to scrutiny. The Overview and Scrutiny Chairman responded by suggesting that if Members felt he was not fulfilling his role then this could be considered at a future Board meeting. Councillor L. Mallett requested that this part of the debate be recorded in the minutes. The Monitoring Officer confirmed that the Board had the authority to determine the position of the Overview and Scrutiny Chairman.
During consideration of this item reference was also made to the length of time involved in considering and making an urgent decision, including the amount of notice provided to Members consulted over urgent decisions. It was also noted that group leaders had opportunities to meet outside formal Committee meetings when a range of issues could be discussed. The Monitoring Officer suggested that this matter could be addressed by the Leader outside the meeting.
|
|||||||||||||
|
Amendment to Committee Membership To note that Councillor J. Till is replaced on the Licensing Committee by Councillor A. Kriss with immediate effect.
Minutes: Members were advised that Councillor J. Till was standing down from the Licensing Committee and would be replaced by Councillor A. Kriss. Councillor Till was thanked for her work serving as a member of the Committee.
During consideration of this item Members questioned why an appointment to the Licensing Committee had been reported to Council. The Monitoring Officer explained that group leaders were responsible for determining their group’s appointments. However, Committee appointments were always retrospectively reported to Council, both at the Annual Council meeting and during the year as they occurred.
|
|||||||||||||
|
Appointment of Section 151 Officer Minutes: Members were advised that there was a requirement under the Local Government Act 1972 for the Council to have a Section 151 Officer. During a recent meeting of the Appointments Committee, Mr J. Howse had been nominated to the position of Section 151 Officer and Director of Resources. Subject to Council agreement, Mr Howse would be commencing employment with the authority in 2021.
RESOLVED that Mr James Howse be appointed as the officer responsible for the administration of the Council’s finances under s151 of the Local Government Act 1972.
|
|||||||||||||
|
Recommendations from the Cabinet (to follow) To consider the recommendations from the meeting(s) of the Cabinet held on 25th November 2020.
Minutes: Worcestershire Regulatory Services Board Budget Recommendations 2020/21
Councillor A. Kent, Deputy Leader and Portfolio Holder for Planning and Regulatory Services, presented the recommendations arising from a meeting of the Worcestershire Regulatory Services (WRS) Board held on 1st October 2020.
The recommendations addressed the need for partner organisations to increase budget contributions in order to cover increased pension costs. The increase in pension costs had arisen following the outcomes of a national court case in relation to age related contributions. A refund had been requested to be paid to Wyre Forest District Council, which was withdrawing from the pest control service provided by WRS. The revised budget contribution from Bromsgrove District Council to WRS in 2020/21 would be £468,000, or 14.59 per cent of the WRS budget.
During consideration of this item, it was noted that there appeared to have been a challenging debate at the WRS Board meeting when the budget position for 2020/21 had been discussed. Members noted that Councillors A. Kent and H. Jones served on the WRS Board on behalf of Bromsgrove District Council. It was also noted that there would be further recommendations about the WRS budget coming forward in future months for Members’ consideration.
Members commented that WRS had been working very hard during the Covid-19 pandemic, which had created a number of challenges for the service. Officers in the team were praised for their hard work at this difficult time.
RESOLVED that partner authorities approve the following for 2020/21:
1.1 the additional partner liabilities for 2020/21 in relation to increase in WRS pension forward funding rate and recommend the increase to individual partner councils:-
1.2 the additional partner liabilities for 2020/21 in relation to the additional increase in pay award of 0.75% from the original estimated 2% and recommend the increase to individual partner councils:-
1.3 the refund to Wyre Forest in relation to the change of Pest Control Services and recommend the refund to individual partner councils:-
1.5 the revised budget for 2020/21 and partner percentage allocations for 2020/21 onwards, due to the change in pest control service at Wyre Forest:-
Domestic Abuse Policy
Councillor S. Webb, Portfolio Holder for Strategic Housing and Health and Wellbeing, presented the Domestic Abuse Policy for Members’ consideration. Members were advised that the policy set out the Council’s approach to responding to cases of domestic abuse and supporting victims, which included participation in multi-agency partnership work to tackle domestic abuse. The Domestic Abuse Act would introduce a legal duty, from April 2021 onwards, for Councils to house victims of domestic abuse and their children. The legislation also introduced a statutory definition of domestic abuse, which acknowledged that this could be physical, emotional and / or coercive.
RESOLVED that
(1) the draft Domestic Abuse Policy be adopted; and (2) the Head of Housing and Community Services be given delegated authority to update and amend the policy ... view the full minutes text for item 44\20 |
|||||||||||||
|
To note the minutes of the meeting of the Cabinet held on 25th November 2020 (to follow) Minutes: Members commented that reference had been made in the minutes to the Finance and Budget Working Group’s debate about the fees and charges and that questions had been raised during this debate about fees for planning enforcement. Councillor C. Hotham clarified that the group had, in fact, been discussing fees for pre-application advice.
Reference was also made to the Bromsgrove Economic Recovery Framework, which had been discussed during the Cabinet meeting. Councillor S. Douglas asked for Members to be consulted at the ‘imagine stage’ of the town centres regeneration process.
The minutes from the Cabinet meeting held on 25th November 2020 were noted.
|
|||||||||||||
|
Questions on Notice 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.
Minutes: Question Submitted by Councillor J King
“The leader assured this council recently that all Bromsgrove District Council workers are paid at least the real living wage currently £9.30per hour). Could she now assure this council that this includes those who are sub-contracted to work on behalf of Bromsgrove District Council delivering public services? Could she also confirm that it is a condition of any tender process for council services that sub-contractors must pay their staff the real living wage and if this is not current practice , could steps be taken to put this condition in place?”
The Leader responded by explaining that this issue had previously been discussed at a meeting of Council and had also been referred to the Overview and Scrutiny Board for a full investigation to be carried out. A motion had been put forward on this matter on 21st November 2012 and the Board received an initial report on 22nd April 2013 and a further report on 15th July 2013. The second report was the most relevant to the question that had been asked, as it highlighted the issues which could have an impact on the implementation and monitoring of the living wage. This was acknowledged by the Board when Members determined that no further action should be taken. The Leader offered to share copies of the minutes of the relevant meetings and reports that had previously been considered on this subject and advised that the position had not changed since then.
Question Submitted by Councillor R. Hunter
“Given that the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee has recently exposed the selection criteria for the £3.6bn Towns Fund for being ‘vague and based on sweeping assumptions’ to the extent that it is a ‘risk to the civil service’s reputation for impartiality’ will the Leader write to the Secretary of State to ask that any future funds of this type are distributed using a fairer and more transparent process?”
The Leader advised that the matter of fairness and transparency had been addressed in the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee’s Report published on 11th November 2020, following the inquiry ‘Selecting Towns for the Towns Fund’. The Council supported the report’s conclusions and recommendations, including the recommendation that “to avoid accusations that government is selecting towns for political reasons, the Department [i.e. Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government] should be upfront and transparent about how it reaches funding decisions as the Towns Fund progresses, particularly the planned competitive round. The principle of openness and transparency should extend across the whole of government when it is selecting some local areas, but not others, to benefit from taxpayers’ money”. In this context, the Leader advised that it would not be appropriate at this stage to write a letter to the Secretary of State in respect of this matter.
Question Submitted by Councillor C. Hotham
“In the six months to August 2020 Wychavon District Council collected 957 tonnes of road sweeping, in the same period ... view the full minutes text for item 46\20 |
|||||||||||||
|
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.
Additional documents:
Minutes: The Vice Chairman explained that in respect of Councillor R. Hunter’s motion it has been agreed by the Leader and accepted by Councillor Hunter, that this matter would be referred to the Overview and Scrutiny Board for consideration.
The Vice Chairman also advised that, in respect of Councillor McDonald’s motion, following discussions, it had also been agreed that the subject of the Motion would be referred to the Overview and Scrutiny Board for consideration.
IHRA Definition of Antisemitism
Members considered the following Motion on Notice, submitted by Councillor M. Thompson:
“This Council, in solidarity agrees to unequivocally adopt the IHRA definition of antisemitism.”
The Motion was proposed by Councillor M. Thompson and seconded by Councillor A. Kriss.
In proposing the Motion, Councillor Thompson explained that whilst there had been suggestions that the Motion might be unconstitutional and amendments had been suggested, it was important to tackle prejudice. Reference was made to the findings in the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s (EHRC) report ‘Investigation into Antisemitism in the Labour Party’, which was published in October 2020, the lessons that were being learned from this and the action that had been taken since. Councillor Thompson highlighted his own political past and advised that he was opposed to all forms of racism, including antisemitism, and expressed concerns that racist and antisemitic comments had been made by national political figures from a number of political parties over the years.
In seconding the Motion Councillor Kriss explained that the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) had been established to tackle prejudice, undertake research and to raise awareness of antisemitism and the Holocaust. The IHRA had worked on the Holocaust Memorial Day commemorations, which had been introduced following concerns that reports of antisemitism were on the rise globally. Increasingly, people were expressing antisemitic comments and opinions in their criticisms of Israel and unfortunately some people believed in conspiracy theories about Jewish people. The IHRA definition of antisemitism had been adopted by the Government and Councillor Kriss urged Bromsgrove District Council to do the same.
During consideration of this item, Councillor S. Douglas suggested that clarification should be provided about the focus of the Motion and she therefore proposed that the IHRA’s definition of antisemitism should be referenced in the Motion as follows: “Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred towards Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed to Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.” In discussing this proposal from Councillor Douglas, Members questioned whether this was an amendment. Instead, it was suggested that this provided clarification about the focus of the Motion, as originally worded.
Members subsequently discussed the Motion in further detail. In discussing the Motion, Councillor M. Middleton highlighted the need for the Council to demonstrate that it took a firm stance against antisemitism and that this form of prejudice had no place in society. Members were asked to recall the genocide that had taken ... view the full minutes text for item 47\20 |
|||||||||||||
|
To consider, and if considered appropriate, to pass the following resolution to exclude the public from the meeting during the consideration of item(s) of business containing exempt information:- "RESOLVED: that under Section 100 I of the Local Government Act 1972, as amended, the public be excluded from the meeting during the consideration of the following item(s) of business on the grounds that it/they involve(s) the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Part I of Schedule 12A to the Act, as amended, the relevant paragraph of that part, in each case, being as set out below, and that it is in the public interest to do so:-
Minutes: "RESOLVED: that under Section 100 I of the Local Government Act 1972, as amended, the public be excluded from the meeting during the consideration of the following item of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Part I of Schedule 12A to the Act, as amended, the relevant paragraph of that part, in each case, being as set out below, and that it is in the public interest to do so:-
|
|||||||||||||
|
Bromsgrove District Car Parks - Capital Programme CONFIDENTIAL Appendix Minutes: Members discussed the information that had been provided on pink papers in advance of the meeting about the Recreation Road South Car Park in exempt session.
It was noted that the Council was being offered extra funding by a third party to manage the car park at a time when the Council’s parking revenue had declined. Members commented that the car park was not due to be refurbished for another 5 years and therefore a contract with a third party for 2 to 3 years would not impact on the condition of the car park. Concerns were raised that the Council would lose revenue if this deal was agreed. In addition, it was suggested that the car park was the jewel in the crown of Bromsgrove car parks and should therefore continue to be managed by the Council.
The Leader advised that moving forward, there were costs in respect of new car park infrastructure for the Recreation Road South Car Park. Parking Enforcement Officers would be diverted from the car park to working around schools, which would potentially have a beneficial impact on the safety of local school pupils. The Leader concluded by explaining that there would be no risk to the Council arising from the agreement with the third party.
During consideration of this item Members questioned whether there had been a breach in terms of the discussion of exempt information during the public session at the meeting, in particular through the naming of the third party organisation. The Monitoring Officer explained that she would investigate whether there had been a breach, though she noted that there were potential exemptions in respect of the commercial aspects of the agreement.
In accordance with Procedure Rule 18.3 a recorded vote was taken and the voting was as follows:
For the Recommendation: Councillors S. Colella, R. Deeming, G. Denaro, S. Douglas, A. English, M. Glass, C. Hotham, R. Hunter, H. Jones, A. Kent, J. King, A. Kriss, K. May, M. Middleton, S. Robinson, M. Thompson, P. Thomas, J. Till, M. Sherrey, C. Spencer, K. Van Der Plank, S. Webb and P. Whittaker. (23)
Against the Recommendation: Councillors L. Mallett, P. McDonald and H. Rone-Clarke. (3)
Abstentions: (0)
On being put to the vote the recommendation was carried.
RESOLVED that the preliminary offer made by a third party, to take over the running and maintenance of the Recreation Road South Car Park be accepted.
(During the consideration of this item, Members discussed matters that necessitated the disclosure of exempt information. It was therefore agreed to move to exclude the press and public prior to any debate on the grounds that information would be revealed relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information).
|