Minutes:
(a) Olympic Torch Procession
The Leader advised that Bromsgrove was the only District in the County which would not be hosting part of the Olympic Torch Procession. A representative from Bromsgrove had been selected to take part in the procession but this Council had not been consulted or involved.
(b) Sainsbury’s Development
The Leader referred to the comments made by Councillor R. J. Shannon relating to the possibility of Sainsbury’s not proceeding with the development in Bromsgrove, and reported that a planning application had now been received to facilitate the supermarket development.
(c) Balances/Capital Expenditure
The Leader referred to a list which had been circulated containing information which had been requested previously by Councillor S. P. Shannon relating to Council expenditure and balances.
(d) Overview and Scrutiny/Planning Committee
The Leader expressed concerns regarding the operation of the Overview and Scrutiny Board and the Planning Committee. With regard to the Planning Committee he had requested officers to consider what changes could be made and how the efficiency of the Committee could be improved which would be of benefit to all Members of the Council.
In relation to Overview and Scrutiny, the Leader felt that Scrutiny should be undertaken to look at areas or issues and to assess whether they were working properly and he felt the recent Car Park Task Group had been a good example of this. The Bus Services Task Group had not been undertaken in the correct manner as it had become very political, with letters and articles appearing in the press before the recommendations of the Task Group were known. The proposed County Council cuts in services had been greatly reduced in fact by District Councillors raising issues and working with the County Council but this was prior to the Task Group being set up.
The Leader also referred to the recommendation from the Overview and Scrutiny Board in relation to the Marlbrook Tip that he discuss with the Chief Executive how an investigation could be carried out by an appropriate audit/investigation team. There were concerns from the opposition that the Council would be investigating itself and in this regard the Leader was also concerned that there may be a need to look at whether the Audit Board should also be chaired by an independent person rather than by a Member of the Council.
(e) Consultations from Central Government
The Leader referred to a number of Consultation documents from Central Government including those relating to Business Rates and Council Tax Benefits and raised concerns regarding the implementation of these proposals.
Members then raised questions/comments to which the Leader responded as summarised below.
Councillor P. M. McDonald referred to the Sainsbury’s issue and commented that five years ago the Leader had stated that the Market Hall site would be developed within a year and this had not happened so how could he be confident that the Sainsbury’s development would now go ahead. The Leader responded that the planning application for the service station on Birmingham Road had been received and that Sainsbury’s had now agreed to all the Section 106 agreement conditions. He stated he had not mentioned the Market Hall site or indeed given a date for the Sainsbury’s development.
Councillor P. M. McDonald referred to previous discussions and comments on the Polymer Latex site at Stoke Prior and queried whether the Leader was aware that it was rumoured that the planning application would be for larger “executive style” houses and would not include 40 per cent affordable housing and that the local Member was aware of this. The Chairman reminded Councillor McDonald that questions should relate to items raised by the Leader at this meeting. The Leader therefore made no comment
Councillor P. M. McDonald referred to the Leader’s comments on Scrutiny and commented that the Scrutiny function should be dealt with by the Chairman and Members of the Overview and Scrutiny Board. He queried whether the Leader was aware that it was good practice that Scrutiny should be looking at the actions of the Leader and Cabinet and not the other way around and that it was not for the Leader to decide which issues were to be scrutinised. The Leader responded that he felt it was important that rather than making political points, Scrutiny should be looking at issues which were causing problems. The Leader responded that he had not interfered with the Overview and Scrutiny Board but that he did not feel that the Bus Services Task Group was a good use of the Board’s time when there were other issues which needed addressing.
In relation to Marlbrook Tip Councillor P. M. McDonald queried whether the Leader was aware that officers had advised the Overview and Scrutiny Board that it was not appropriate for the Board to undertake a Scrutiny Exercise. Councillor McDonald stated that the Overview and Scrutiny Board should not be fettered and that the Scrutiny into the Marlbrook Tip should be chaired by the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader responded that he had suggested that Scrutiny should be investigating the background to the Marlbrook Tip issue and to that extent he had agreed with Councillor McDonald. The Leader confirmed he had subsequently been informed by officers that the issue could not be scrutinised. The Chief Executive confirmed that officers would reconsider whether this could be a possible item for Scrutiny.
In relation to the Bus Services Task Group Councillor P. M. McDonald queried why the original consultation on Bus Services from the Worcestershire County Council had not been considered by the Council as a whole so that a formal response could have been sent to the County Council.
Councillor Mrs S. J. Baxter asked the Leader to explain his concerns regarding the Planning Committee. The Leader responded that he was concerned that Planning Policies which had been set by the Council were not always adhered to.
Councillor C. J. Tidmarsh responded to the comments made in relation to the Polymer Latex site. Councillor Tidmarsh stated that the site was likely to be transferred to new ownership within the next 10 days and as that was a major operation, as the local Member he had felt it would be appropriate for the incoming tenants to be welcomed by the Leader of the Council and the Chief Executive. Councillor P. M. McDonald queried under what circumstances Councillor Tidmarsh had met the Company representatives. Councillor L. C. R. Mallett queried whether Councillor Tidmarsh had had any discussions which would be contrary to the Council’s policy on affordable housing and the possible mix of housing on the site and specifically if he had had discussions with Polymer Latex as to whether this site would include any affordable housing or if the level would be less than the 40 percent affordable usually required. Councillor Tidmarsh stated he had had no such discussions and had not met the developer.
Councillor E. J. Murray queried why the Leader was questioning the actions of the Planning Committee when the Leader had the opportunity to decide which Members were on the Committee. The Leader responded he was doing what he thought was best as far as the Leading Group was concerned.