Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence was received from Councillor J. Clarke.   Apologies for absence were also received from Councillor J.D. Stanley and his named substitute was Councillor D.J.A. Forsythe. 

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 nor of whipping arrangements.

The minutes of the Overview and Scrutiny Board meeting held on 10^th February 2026 were considered by the Board.

Members were taken through the minutes page by page and several points of clarification or requested amendments were raised as follows:

• A typographical error was highlighted which read, “Councillor J.W. attending as a named substitute” which should have read “Councillor J.W. Robinson attending as a named substitute”.
• An update was provided to Members concerning the Board’s request for the Council’s representative on the Police and Crime Panel to report to the Board following each panel meeting, with the Board being informed that the request was in progress.
• A typographical error was highlighted that the resolution for the Planning Advisory Service (PAS) agenda item should have read, “RECOMMENDED” and not “RESOLVED” (as the Board can only make recommendations and not final decisions).
• A request for further clarity to the bullet point which stated, “The report concluded that a strategic, place-based approach was required to support the Town Centre accessibility and economic activity, with further on-site counts recommended”.  It was agreed that further clarification would be provided and circulated to all Members.
• A Member referred to the bullet point which stated, “Members expressed the view that future demands for parking had not been highlighted in the Local Plan”.  It was suggested this should instead read, “Members expressed the view that future demands for parking had not been highlighted, in light of the Local Plan housing requirements”. This was to reflect that it was the parking study which had not fully allowed for the additional housing growth in the Local Plan, rather than the Local Plan itself omitting parking.  In response the Chairman asked if Members were content to change the wording as suggested. No objections were raised and the Board agreed to amend the wording accordingly.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the Overview and Scrutiny Board meeting held on 10^th February 2026 including the preamble above be approved as a correct record.

The Assistant Director Corporate Services and Transformation provided an update on LGR to Members.  The report outlined Bromsgrove’s position within the Government’s seven stage LGR process which was currently at Stage 3 - Statutory Consultation and closed on 26th March 2026.

The key points presented were:

• Worcestershire remained at Stage 3 of The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) process.
• Workstreams on Finance, HR, Legal, IT and Services were progressing.
• The MHCLG “Listening Meeting” took place on 11th March, supported by KPMG.
• The devolution footprint discussions had advanced with Worcestershire Leaders agreeing to a joint position with Herefordshire and exploring alignment with Warwickshire/Gloucestershire.
• Future updates may be limited until Government decisions were carried out, which was due in Summer 2026.
• LGR and Devolution remained key Corporate Risks.
• District involvement in strategic planning spatial development strategies (SDS) would be retained until at least April 2028.

The Portfolio Holder also gave a member level perspective, drawing on a recent two-day LGR training programme for Councillors, emphasising that the period should be seen as an opportunity for Members to define what they want from LGR, particularly if a One Worcestershire option were selected.  There was a need to develop a negotiating position, distinguishing what was essential for Bromsgrove’s residents and communities from what was less critical.  The Portfolio Holder explained she was keen to involve all Members in shaping these priorities and suggested that the Board, rather than an additional Cabinet Advisory Group (CAG), might be a suitable forum.

After the presentation the Board made the following comments:

• A Member expressed concern that the reference within the report to major infrastructure planning across wider geographies, highlighted how far Bromsgrove was behind in its own infrastructure planning and Local Plan work.  Specific questions were asked which included what could practically be done to catch up and when Members would see a detailed project plan, including milestones and the role of any shadow authority? – In response the Leader and Executive Director reassured Members that, in relation to Foundation Strategic Authorities (FSA) and Spatial Development Strategies (SDS), Bromsgrove was not behind with progress.  Government had not yet defined the precise FSA footprint and SDS responsibilities would initially lie with County/Unitary councils.  The immediate priority was ensuring data and assets were in good order, that the Local Plan was progressed and key assets were on a sustainable footing.

Members were also advised that the Council had set aside funding for LGR and had the risk and resilience reserve (£1m in LGR and £2.5m in Risk and Reserve), which would help fund the implementation and sustain services, including staff who may move between organisations, following a government decision. This was recognised at national events as being relatively robust compared to many councils. 

The Portfolio Holder explained also that a route map of the typical LGR stages (integration, then transformation over years 2–4) was available and would be shared with the Board.

• It was queried by Members what contingency plans were in place, should Government chose  ...  view the full minutes text for item 106/23

The Council’s HOSC Representative, Councillor B. Kumar provided an update on the meetings which took place on 11^th February and 4^th March 2026 respectively.

Members were updated with the Annual Review of Public Health, including key population health trends, progress against Health and Wellbeing Board priorities and emerging risks.  The Board were also provided with an overview for the West Midlands Ambulance Service, touching on performance, response times, pressures and improvement actions.

RESOLVED that the HOSC update be noted.

There was no Finance and Budget Group update for this meeting.

The Cabinet Work Programme was presented for Members’ consideration.

RESOLVED that the content of the Cabinet Work Programme be noted as per the preamble above.

The Overview and Scrutiny Board Work Programme was considered by Members. 

Members requested that the following items to be scrutinised at a future meeting:

• AI (uses and risks for the Council)
• Libraries “Unlocked”

RESOLVED that the Overview and Scrutiny Work Programme be noted as per the preamble above.

The Overview and Scrutiny Action Sheet was considered by the Board.  Members highlighted the two actions under the Planning Advisory Service were incorrect and should read as “In Progress” rather than “Completed”.  It was agreed that the action sheet would be amended accordingly.

RESOLVED that the Overview and Scrutiny Action Sheet be noted as per the preamble above.

There was no urgent business for consideration.