Agenda and minutes
PDF 592 KBVenue: Parkside Suite - Parkside. View directions
Contact: Jess Bayley-Hill
Media
| No. | Item | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
To receive apologies for absence Minutes: Apologies for absence were received from Councillors R. Bailes, J. Elledge, R. Lambert and D. Stewart. |
|||||||||
|
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: Councillors K. May and S. Baxter referred to blue badge parking (at minute number 96/23) and clarified that although they each displayed a blue badge on their car it related to a family member.
Councillor H.D.N. Rone-Clark declared an interest in the second Motion on Notice relating to Out of Hours services (minute number 102/23) as he worked for the local NHS Trust.
Councillor J. Robinson declared that he volunteered at the Artrix, which was referred to in the Medium Term Financial Plan (minute number 96/23).
|
|||||||||
|
Minutes: The minutes of the Council meeting held on 24th January 2024 were submitted for Members’ consideration.
RESOLVED that
The minutes of the Council meeting held on 24th January 2024 be approved as a correct record subject to the following amendments:
· In minute number 84/23, Planning Enforcement Policy, to include reference to Councillor K. Taylor stating he was prepared to submit the Planning Enforcement Policy to the Planning Committee for consideration, subject to seeking advice from the Monitoring Officer and the Head of Planning, Regeneration and Leisure Services about whether this was appropriate, and · In minute number 86/23 - Reference to Councillor D. Nicholls to be changed to Councillor D. Nicholl.
|
|||||||||
|
To receive any announcements from the Chairman and/or Head of Paid Service Minutes: Chairman
The Chairman made the following announcements:
“On 9th February 2024 the Government created some new peers. One of those ennobled was Charles Banner. Charles was brought up in Barnt Green and his proud mother, an ex-parish Councillor, still lives in the village. Charles has taken the name Lord Banner of Barnt Green in Worcestershire. This is a great honour for Barnt Green and we would like to offer congratulations to Lord Banner.” The Chairman thanked Councillor C. Hotham for bringing this to the Council’s attention and the Council joined in a round of applause in congratulating Lord Banner.
The Chairman also reminded Members that there was a comedy night due to take place on Friday 1st March at Bromsgrove Golf Centre in aid of the Chairman’s charity – Age UK. She suggested that if people could not attend the night, they might like to donate instead by means of raffle prizes or cash for the charity Age UK.
Head of Paid Service
There were no announcements from the Head of Paid Service. |
|||||||||
|
To receive any announcements from the Leader Minutes: The Leader did not have any announcements for this meeting. |
|||||||||
|
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.
|
|||||||||
|
Urgent Decisions Minutes: The Chairman advised that there had been no urgent decisions since the last meeting of the Council.
|
|||||||||
|
Independent Remuneration Panel Recommendations 2024/25 Additional documents: Minutes: The Council considered recommendations made by the Independent Remuneration Panel for the level of members’ allowances for the financial year 2024-25.
Councillor C. Hotham proposed the recommendations in the report, which were seconded by Councillor K. May.
In proposing the recommendations Councillor Hotham reminded the Council that the Panel was independent and operated at ‘arms’ length’. He suggested that the purpose of the allowances was to provide some recompense to Councillors who worked hard on behalf of their communities.
RESOLVED that
The recommendations from the Independent Remuneration Panel for 2024-25 be accepted as follows:
1) A Basic Allowance for 2024-25 of £5,518, representing an 16.6% increase
2) A range of Special Responsibility Allowances as set out in Appendix 1
3) That travel allowances for 2024-25 continue to be paid in accordance with the HMRC mileage allowance
4) That subsistence allowances for 2024-25 remain unchanged
5) That the Dependent Carer’s Allowance remains unchanged
6) That travel and subsistence payments made by Parish Councils to councillors (where they are paid) are made in accordance with the provisions set out in the report.
|
|||||||||
|
Recommendations from the Cabinet Meeting held on 14th February 2024 (to follow) Members are asked to note that under the Local Authorities (Standing Orders) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2014, the Council is required to take a named vote when a decision is made on the budget calculation at a budget decision meeting of the Council.
Minutes: Recommendations from the Cabinet meeting held on 14th February 2024 were presented for the Council’s consideration.
Governance Systems Review
Councillor C. Hotham introduced and proposed the recommendations which had originated from the Governance Systems Task and the Constitution Review Working Groups, and he thanked both for their work on the proposals. Councillor P. McDonald seconded the recommendations and referred to them fulfilling the wishes of the Council.
RESOLVED that
1) The proposed amendments to the Committee Terms of Reference, at Part 5 of the Constitution, in respect of special provisions as to the Chairmen of the Audit, Standards and Governance Committee and the Overview and Scrutiny Board, be approved; and
2) The proposed amendments to the Council Procedure Rules, at Part 8 of the Council’s Constitution, in relation to the appointments of the Chairman of the Council and the Chairmen of the Audit, Standards and Governance Committee and the Overview and Scrutiny Board, be approved.
Carbon Reduction Strategy – Annual Review
Councillor S. Colella presented the report and proposed the recommendations. In doing so he thanked the officers who had brought forward the report. He reported it was important that the Council continued to pursue net zero and welcomed the support of members, officers and fellow Cabinet members in this regard.
Councillor Colella reported that a focus on positive performance would be supported through the use of a dashboard to help monitor progress in the forthcoming year.
Councillor S. Baxter seconded the recommendations.
During consideration of the item the following were the main points raised:
· In response to a suggestion that the Council research using a tool to measure the carbon footprint of the District and carry out roadshows to promote carbon reduction, Councillor Colella reported that the Council was looking at the potential to use an appropriate tool to give a consistent measure of progress. It was also intended to use the services of Act on Energy as the Council’s preferred contractor for engagement with the public. · A member asked when District heating would be delivered. Councillor Colella responded that officers had been urged to accelerate this. The Council was seeking business partners to support this initiative. · Whether there was scope to include a target for tree planting as trees contributed to reduction in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Councillor Colella reported that the biodiversity action plan would be coming forward to the Council and trees were an important part of it. The Council would seek to work with partners such as the County Council to maximise opportunities beyond using Council land. · A member suggested that the Council should seek to influence the actions taken by others across the District as the Council was responsible for only part of the carbon emissions. Councillor Colella agreed that the Council had a part to play in leading the community in the actions it could take. The action plan included a piece of work to review the Council’s procurement arrangements to ensure that the companies it engaged with met the Council’s ... view the full minutes text for item 96\23
|
|||||||||
|
Alternative Budgets (to follow) Members are asked to note that under the Local Authorities (Standing Orders) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2014, the Council is required to take a named vote when a decision is made on the budget calculation at a budget decision meeting of the Council. This includes any votes in respect of any alternative budgets that are proposed.
Minutes: The Chairman advised that no alternative budgets had been submitted for consideration.
|
|||||||||
|
Recommendations from the Cabinet meeting held on 21st February 2024 (to follow) Members are asked to note that under the Local Authorities (Standing Orders) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2014, the Council is required to take a named vote when a decision is made on the Council Tax at a budget decision meeting of the Council.
Under Section 106 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, any Councillor who is 2 or more months in arrears with their Council tax payments cannot participate in any item at the Council meeting concerning the budget.
As this meeting of Cabinet is due to be held on the same day as the Council meeting, any recommendations made by the Cabinet at this meeting will be tabled at the Council meeting. Minutes: Council Tax Resolutions 2024/25
Councillor C. Hotham, Cabinet Member for Finance and Enabling, introduced the Council Tax resolutions which had been considered at the Cabinet meeting held immediately prior to the Council meeting and proposed the recommendations.
Council was informed that the report sought the formal approval of the Council Tax resolutions for 2024/2025. The report took into account the spending requirements of Bromsgrove District Council, Worcestershire County Council (WCC), the Police and Crime Commissioner for West Mercia, Hereford and Worcester Fire Authority and the Parish Councils.
The recommendations were seconded by Councillor K.J. May.
In accordance with the Local Authorities (Standing Orders) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2014, the Council Tax Resolutions 2024/2025 were subject to a named vote.
Members voting FOR the recommendations in the Council Tax Resolutions 2024/2025:
Councillors Cllrs S. Ammar, A. Bailes, S. J. Baxter, S. R. Colella, A. M. Dale, S. M. Evans, D.J.A. Forsythe, E.M.S. Gray, D. Hopkins, C. A. Hotham, R.J. Hunter, H.J. Jones, B. Kumar, M. Marshall, K.J. May, P.M. McDonald, B.M. McEldowney, D.J. Nicholl, S.T. Nock, S.R. Peters, H.D.N. Rone-Clarke, J.W. Robinson, S.J. Robinson J.D. Stanley, K. Taylor, S.A. Webb and P.J. Whittaker (27)
Members voting AGAINST the recommendations in the Council Tax Resolutions 2024/2025:
No Councillors (0)
Members voting to ABSTAIN in the vote for the recommendations in the Council Tax 2024/2025:
No Councillors (0)
The vote for the Council Tax Resolutions 2024/2025 was declared carried.
RESOLVEDthat Council approve:
1) The calculation for the Council Tax requirement for the Council’s own purposes for 2024/25 (excluding Parish precepts) as £9,499,346.19.
2) That the following amounts be calculated for the year 2024/25 in accordance with sections 31 to 36 of the Act:
(a) £46,946,051.69 being the aggregate of the amounts which the Council estimates for the items set out in Section 31A (2) of the Act (taking into account all precepts issued to it by Parish Councils) (i.e., Gross expenditure)
(b) £37,446,705.50 being the aggregate of the amounts which the Council estimates for the items set out in Section 31A (3) of the Act. (i.e., Gross income)
(c) £10,723,413.69 being the amount by which the aggregate of 1.2.2(a) above exceeds the aggregate at 1.2.2(b) above, calculated by the Council, in accordance with Section 31A (4) of the Act, as its Council Tax requirement for the year. (Item R in the formula in Section 31B of the Act).
(d) £282.21 being the amount at 1.2.2 (c) above (Item R), all divided by Item T (1.1(a) above), calculated by the Council, in accordance with Section 31B of the Act, as the basic amount of its Council Tax for the year (including Parish precepts).
(e) £1,224,067.50 being the aggregate amount of all special items (Parish precepts) referred to in Section 34 (1) of the Act (as per the attached Schedule 3).
(f) £250.00 being the amount at 1.2.2 (d) above less the result given by dividing the amount at 1.2.2 (e) above by Item T (1.1 (a) above), calculated by the ... view the full minutes text for item 98\23
|
|||||||||
|
To note the minutes of the meetings of the Cabinet held on 14th February 2024 (to follow) Please note that the minutes from Cabinet meeting held on 14th February 2024 will be published in a supplementary papers pack to this agenda. Minutes: The minutes of the Cabinet meeting held on 14th February 2024 were noted.
The meeting adjourned at 8.43pm and reconvened at 8.57 pm.
|
|||||||||
|
Key Decisions - Financial Threshold (Report to Follow) Minutes: The Council considered a report which set out proposals to increase the threshold at which ‘key decisions’ would be required to be made on procurement matters. Changes in procurement legislation which were due to come into force on 1st April 2024 had prompted a review of the threshold and having considered an initial report about this in July, the Council asked for further details before a decision could be taken.
Councillor C. Hotham proposed the recommendation. He explained that if the threshold was not increased there would be a need for the Council to employ additional resources to support the procurement processes.
Councillor S. Nock seconded the recommendations.
In response to a query about where the report about procurement spend under £50,000 would be considered, Councillor Hotham confirmed that he anticipated a quarterly report to Overview and Scrutiny.
RESOLVED that
The Key Decision threshold is raised to £200K.
|
|||||||||
|
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: The Chairman advised that one Question on Notice had been received for this meeting.
Question submitted by Councillor D. Hopkins
“Would the Leader of the Council be able to provide an update with regards to the progress made in lobbying Worcestershire County Council and Birmingham City Council on the full restoration of the 144 Bus Service?”
Councillor K. May responded that “This was raised at Council on 25th October 2023. As a result, the Council called upon myself to continue to lobby the County Council to ensure that the full route previously covered by the 144 bus is restored, because whilst the 20 bus route had been in place for some time it was currently failing to meet the needs of residents.
I did therefore write to County Councillor Mike Rouse, Cabinet Member for Highways and Transport at Worcestershire County Council, who thanked the Council for raising this. In his response he said that due to the success of the new 20 route it allowed the County to support the extension to the Queen Elizabeth Hospital, which is what passengers who use the service asked them for the most. Users also wanted improved frequencies and Sunday running, and this has been delivered. Customer satisfaction from those who use it is high and they value the service to the hospital. If the buses had to travel into Birmingham City Centre and back again, the frequency would have to be reduced to allow for this additional time. The County are regularly reviewing services and responding to the market demands as it changes. It may well be that travel behaviours change in the future, and the County can reconsider this option.
So, whilst our request to reinstate the 144 bus route cannot be supported by the County at this moment in time, they wish to work in partnership with us in the future.”
In addition, the Leader reported that she had spoken to local members where the number 20 bus service ran, and they reported that residents fed back that they preferred the bus as it was reliable and clean.
Birmingham City Council did not contribute financially to the service and the Council would continue to liaise with the County Council which was responsible for funding the current route.
Councillor Hopkins asked a supplementary question, “for those who still feel the 20 bus service didn’t represent their needs or requirements, how do they raise it with the County Council?”
The Leader responded that Councillors and residents could contact the Cabinet Member for Highways and Transport at the County Council, Councillor M. Rouse. Councillor May also offered to arrange to meet with Councillor Rouse and interested District Councillors to discuss the situation, potentially meeting in Bromsgrove.
|
|||||||||
|
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.
Minutes: The Chairman reported that three Motions on Notice had been submitted for the meeting.
Options for a Relief Road
The Council considered the following Motion on Notice submitted by Councillor R. Hunter:
“Council notes the loss of the proposed route for the western relief road as a result of planning permission being given for housing development. Council believes a detailed study into alternative options for a relief road is now urgently required in order that chronic traffic congestion can be addressed. Council further believes that Bromsgrove District Council should commission its own independent study, as part of the development of the next local plan and calls on officers to produce a business case for the Cabinet to consider within the next six months.”
In proposing the Motion Councillor Hunter referred to the increasing concern from residents in Bromsgrove about the level of congestion in the town. Although some of this had been caused by temporary work on the roads, he considered it demonstrated a lack of resilience in the road infrastructure in the town. He did not consider that anticipated modal shift to public transport and cycling would be achieved, for example as there was a lack of availability of public transport in Bromsgrove. He suggested that new road infrastructure could be constructed in a more sustainable way than it might in the past and it was now an appropriate time to consider the options available to relieve traffic in the town centre to inform future debate.
The Motion was seconded by Councillor J. Robinson.
During debate on the Motion the view was expressed that the Strategic Transport Assessment would address this issue. A separate report was not necessary as it would duplicate work being undertaken in the Assessment at taxpayers’ expense.
Councillor P.M. McDonald proposed, and Councillor H.D.N. Rone-Clark seconded an amendment that consideration of the Motion be deferred until the outcome of the Strategic Transport Assessment was known.
During consideration of the amendment, the view was expressed that the Assessment would not address the issues that the proposed study would consider, such as the viability of routes for a relief road. The study was therefore needed to inform debate about the potential options available and deferral was not appropriate.
Another member referred to the Strategic Planning Steering Group meeting in November where members had been briefed about the Strategic Transport Assessment. There would be the opportunity to attend future meetings about the modelling being used and to influence the content. In their view this meant that a separate study was not needed.
A member expressed the view that the nature of transport would be changing over time and the most effective way to address future needs was to participate in the Strategic Transport Assessment rather than keep the possibility of a separate study by deferring discussion of it.
On being put to the vote the amendment was lost.
During further consideration of the Motion, the view was expressed that a stand-alone report justifying a solution without looking ... view the full minutes text for item 102\23
|
Carried
Rejected