Agenda and minutes

The Chairman welcomed Members to the virtual full Council meeting and reminded them of the protocol to be following during it.  Members were reminded of the use of roll calls and that the detail of these would not be included within the minutes and if Members wished for a named vote to be taken, then this should be requested in the usual manner.

Members were also reminded that the meeting was being live streamed to the Council’s You Tube channel to allow the public to view it.

There were no apologies for absence.

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 disclosable interest in respect of Minute No. 63/2020 in that he worked for a not for profit housing association.

Councillor M Thompson declared an other disclosable interest in respect of Minute No. 62/2020, Councillor S Baxter’s question on notice.  Reference was made to Bromsgrove School, who were his employer.

Following a number of declarations of interest being made in respect of Minute No. 62/2020 Councillor H. Rone-Clarke’s motion on notice, it was suggested that a blanket exemption for the purpose of that item be put in place.  It was therefore:

RESOLVED that a Council dispensation be granted for the purposes of Minute No 62/2020 in respect of being a past or present member of a union.

Members considered the minutes of the meeting of the Council held on 2^nd December 2020.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the full Council meeting held on 2^nd December 2020 be approved.

The Chairman and Head of Paid Service confirmed that they had no announcements to make on this occasion.

The Leader explained that the current Covid-19 figures for Bromsgrove District, as at 10.00 am on Wednesday 20^th January 2021, showed a total of 570 cases per 100,000 over the past 7 day period.  This was a decrease of 15.7% on the previous 7 days.  The national rate for England was 507 cases per 100,000 and for the West Midlands 568 per 100,000.  She was pleased to see a decrease in the numbers, but as there were still very high it was still important that everyone adhered to the hands, face and space rules.

Councillor R Hunter thanked the Leader for the update and commented on the very sobering figures that had been provided.  He also thanked the Leader for keeping Group Leaders up to date with the proposed Vaccination Centre being based at the Artrix, which everyone was keen to see opened to allow Bromsgrove to play its part in tackling the dreadful virus.  He hoped that everyone could work together to make this as successful as possible.

The Leader responded that she, along with everyone else would be pleased to see this opened, but unfortunately it was not within her remit to make any announcements on this.  It fell within the scope of the NHS and she had not been privy to any start date.  She hoped that as many residents as possible could get vaccinated in the near future, and the economy could be kick started and residents get back to some sort of normality in their lives.

Councillor P McDonald asked the Leader whether she could advise of any arrangements that would be made regarding transport, as the residents from the outlying areas such as Rubery, would struggle to get to the Artrix without their own transport, as it was quite a distance for the elderly or less able to walk from the bus stop to the Artrix.  Councillor McDonald asked if there would be any specific arrangements made for that vulnerable group.

The Leader responded that she was not able to respond to the query raised but would ask the Chief Executive to raise this point with the NHS.  She did however point out that there would be further vaccination centres in the whole of the district, and it would not solely be dependent on the Artrix.  She was aware that some GP Practices and pharmacies were also coming on board for vaccination purposes, but she would ask for clarity on the issue of transport provision.

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 members of the public on this occasion.

The Chairman advised that there was one Urgent Decision and reminded Members that this was not for debate.  It was confirmed that full details of the Urgent Decision had been made available on the Council’s website when it had initially been signed off.

Councillor G. Denaro, Portfolio Holder for Finance and Resources (including Governance/Policy and Performance/HR) presented the report and highlighted that the aim of this was to try and speed up the manner in which Section 106 monies reached the communities.  He commented that in the past these had to go through the full committee process, so the request was for authority be given to the Section 151 Officer to spend in line with the agreements up to £50k, which would cover a lot of the S106 agreements.

The recommendation was proposed by Councillor Denaro and seconded by Councillor M Sherrey.

Councillor Hotham, whilst agreeing with the sentiment of the recommendation, proposed an amendment to include the consultation of the Ward Member for the area where the monies were to be spent.  He felt that it was only reasonable that the Ward Member be consulted, whilst he appreciated that the monies were in many cases almost ring fenced, he believed there was some discretion to how it could be spent and therefore suggested that the recommendation be amended to include (after Section 151 Officer) in consultation with the Ward Member.  The amendment was seconded by Councillor S. Baxter and she commented that certainly locally where there had been a little bit of discretion in S106 monies it was useful to be involved.

Councillor A Kent asked for clarification as to whether the amendment was legally permissible, and the Monitoring Officer confirmed that it was and highlighted that there were often delegations which were in place which included consultation with the relevant Ward Member.  She confirmed that they would not be able to make the decision or influence it but could be consulted on what that decision was.

Councillor Denaro was happy to support the amendment and for it to be included within the recommendation and on being put to the vote it was

RESOLVED that authority to spend S106 monies up to a value of £50k be delegated to the S151 Officer, after consultation with the Ward Member, to spend in line with the S106 agreement which caused the receipt of the S106 monies.

The Chairman asked Members to disregard the report in the main agenda pack and referred them to the updated report in the supplementary pack on pages 1 to 6.

Councillor G. Denaro, Portfolio Holder for Finance and Resources (including Governance/Policy and Performance/HR) presented the report and explained that, as Members would be aware, if numbers in any party changed than a recalculation of the committee places was necessary.  The schedule at the last page of the report showed the revised committee structures and had been agreed by the various Group Leaders outside of the meeting.

The recommendations were proposed by Councillor Denaro and seconded by Councillor K May.

RESOLVED that:

a)    for the ensuing Municipal Year, the Committees set out in the table in Appendix 1 of the report be appointed and that the representation of the different political groups on the Council on those Committees be as set out in that table until the next Annual Meeting of the Council, or until the next review of political representation under Section 15 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, whichever is the earlier be approved; and

b)    Members be appointed to the Committees and as substitute members in accordance with nominations to be made by Group Leaders and the details appended to the minutes of this meeting.

To consider the recommendations from the meeting(s) of the Cabinet held on 13^th January 2021 (to follow).

Worcestershire Regulatory Services Board

Councillor A Kent, Portfolio Holder for Planning and Regulatory Services introduced the report and clarified that, due to the timing of the Worcestershire Regulatory Services Board (WRSB) meeting, which was held shortly before the Council’s meeting in December, he had covered off the majority of the recommendations within the discussion at the December meeting.  However, the main changes had been due to the deferment of the uplift which WRS had imposed at late notice in respect of the ICT accommodation charges and the ICT hosting charge.  It was noted that all recommendations had been included for clarity.

Councillor Kent took the opportunity to recognise the sterling work which WRS were doing during the current situation.  The Covid Marshalls were doing an excellent job and he recommended that any Members who received local information about difficulties in their areas, if they contacted WRS or himself, they would assist in alleviating any problems.  He thanked them for their hard work in a very difficult time, which only highlight what a good service it was. 

The Chairman requested that the Council’s thanks be relayed back to WRS.

The recommendations were proposed by Councillor A Kent and seconded by Councillor H Jones.

RESOLVED that

a)    the additional partner liabilities for 2021/22 in relation to the increase in accommodation charges and ICT hosting from Wyre Forest District Council be approved as follows;

b)    partner authorities approve the following 2020/21:

1.1 the 2021/22 gross expenditure budget of £3,739k as shown in appendix 1 of the report;

1.2 the 2021/22 income budget of £529k as shown in appendix 1 of the report;

1.3 the revenue budget and partner percentage allocations for 2021/22 onwards –

1.4 the additional partner liabilities for 2021/22 in relation to unavoidable salary pressure –

1.5 the additional partner liabilities for 2021/22 in relation to three technical officers.

The Chairman referred Members to the supplementary agenda and explained that, unfortunately, there had been a technical hitch with the Cabinet minutes produced in the supplementary pack sent out to all Members on Tuesday 19^th January 2021.  The error referred to Minute No. 57/20 (which was shown as a repeat of Minute No. 58/20).  It was confirmed that there were no recommendations to Council from that minute, so it did not impact on the recommendations for consideration at this meeting.  It was further confirmed that the minutes had been updated on the Council’s website and all Members have received an updated version via email.

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 highlighted to Members that an updated list of the questions had been provided in the supplementary pack and that a period of 15 minutes was allocated to the presenting and responses to, these questions.  There would be no supplementary questions.

Question Submitted by Councillor S Robinson

“Can the portfolio holder inform me what enforcement is being carried out to stop cars parking on double yellow lines?”

The Leader responded that the Council’s Civil Enforcement Officers (CEOs) routinely patrolled the District carrying out enforcement on all Traffic Regulation Orders including double yellow lines.  Last financial year 426 Parking Contravention Notices (PCNs) were issued against vehicles parked on double yellow lines, this financial year due to COVID-19 restrictions the number of PCNs issued so far on yellow lines was 245.  Unfortunately, it was not possible for CEOs to be everywhere all of the time, therefore if Members had any specific areas of concern, they could contact the Parking Team via email bdcparking@bromsgrove.gov.uk  who would do their best to increase monitoring of that area for a period of time.

Question Submitted by Councillor K Van der Plank

“Many of our local businesses are really struggling especially as a result of this new lockdown. Please could the Leader confirm what business grants are still available to businesses in the District impacted by Covid. What is the process for applying for these and the deadline and how is this going to be communicated across the district?”

The Leader responded that the Council had received funding to provide support to any of its businesses that were closed during the November period of restrictions or had been forced to close during the current period of national restrictions.  In addition, it had provided support to hospitality, hotel and leisure businesses that were open during December but were significantly impacted by the tier 2 and tier 3 restrictions that were in place.

The Council has developed a discretionary grant fund for businesses that were not required to close but were impacted by the restrictions.  This scheme would provide support to hospitality and leisure supply chain businesses who would have lost income because their customer base was forced to close.

The schemes could be applied for on the Council’s website; and each application would be considered for eligibility for all the Government support schemes and were being promoted on-line and by social media.  Where contact details were held, businesses would be contacted by text or email and urged to apply directly by the Council.

Question Submitted by Councillor R Hunter

“Please could you update council on what is being done to support those local businesses worst affected by the pandemic. Can you confirm how many Bromsgrove businesses have received the Additional Restrictions Grant since November and how many Bromsgrove pubs have received their Christmas Support Grant?”

The Portfolio Holder for Finance and Resources firstly, asked it to be put on record his thanks to all the teams that had been dealing with the grant applications at this  ...  view the full minutes text for item 61\2020

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 in respect of Councillor King’s motion it had been agreed by the Leader and Officers had been tasked with investigating delivery of this Motion.   In respect of Councillor Hunter’s motion, it had also been agreed and Officers again, had been tasked with investigating delivery of this Motion.

The Chairman confirmed that the final Motion, from Councillor H Rone-Clarke, which had been published in the supplementary agenda pack for Members’ consideration, at page 27, would be debated in the usual way, with the time limit of one hour.

Trade Unions

Members considered the following Motion on Notice, submitted by Councillor H Rone-Clarke:

Background Information:

i.               People on lower paid jobs are less likely to be able to work from home, increasing their risk of exposure to Coronavirus.

ii.              That research by the TUC has found unionised workplaces to be more ‘Covid secure.’

iii.             Union membership brings job security.

iv.            Trade union membership will provide greater employment rights beyond the end of the pandemic.

Council sends congratulations to the Trade Union Congress on the 150^th anniversary of the passing of the Trade Union Act and

Council requests Cabinet to do the following:

i.               Commit to sending a representative of the Cabinet to attend trade union liaison meetings moving forward.

ii.              Reaffirm its commitment to working/consulting with trade unions as it leads us through the Coronavirus crisis and beyond.

iii.             Commit to promote trade union membership both as an employer and for the people of Bromsgrove.

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

In proposing the Motion, Councillor Rone-Clarke explained that there were two aspects to the preparation of his motion and firstly the motion was put together with the help and guidance of people in the Trades Union movement and secondly, an integral part of the motion was that the Cabinet engaged more robustly with the Trades Unions, particularly those who represented employees and staff working at this Council.  He had been interested to hear at the beginning of the meeting the number of Members who had or continued to be members of a Trade Union.  Councillor Rone-Clarke asked Members to ask themselves a key question before they made a decision as to whether to vote for or against the motion; “If you are a member of a trade union would you not want the same robust engagement with your employer or stakeholders related to your Trade Union?”  He wanted to extend the same curtesy to the staff of this Council, so he urged Members to consider this when making a decision and hoped Members would vote in the right way.

Councillor S Colella raised a point of order and asked for clarification as to what exactly Members were being asked to vote on.  The Chairman suggested that Members were considering points i), ii) and iii) in the concluding paragraph of the motion.  This was confirmed as being correct by Councillor Rone-Clarke.

In seconding the Motion, Councillor P McDonald  ...  view the full minutes text for item 62\2020

Following presentation of the report by the Portfolio Holder for Strategic Housing and a lengthy debate, which included a number of points of order also being raised, a proposal to defer the item was put forward by Councillor R Hunter and seconded by Councillor P McDonald, on being put to the vote it was

RESOLVED that the item be deferred.

The Chairman asked if Members happy to take the confidential minutes as read, without discussion and the need to go into private session.  Members were in agreement to put the confidential minutes straight to the vote.

RESOLVED that the confidential minute of the full Council meeting held on 2^nd December 2020 be agreed as a true record.