Agenda item

Motions on Notice (To follow if any)

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.

To consider the following motion submitted by Councillor :-

Minutes:

Local Transport Plan 4

Members considered the following notice of motion submitted by Councillor P. M. McDonald:

"It was with utter shock and dismay that I had to witness Cllr’s May and Taylor at County Hall voting for the Local Transport Plan 4.

Bromsgrove District Council had voted unanimously against the plan with good reason and both Cllr Taylor and May spoke and voted against it. Both hold positions of importance as cabinet members and they have now made their positions untenable with their blatant disregard for decisions made in the chamber, therefore, we call upon them to resign forthwith.”

The motion was proposed by Councillor P. M. McDonald and seconded by Councillor L. C. R. Mallett.

In presenting the Motion Councillor McDonald made reference to the fact that when decisions were made residents expected them to be honoured. He referred specifically to the cross party agreement reached in respect of the Local Transport Plan No 4 (LTP 4) and failure to address issues which had been raised on a number of occasions at Council meetings. It was stated that two Members of the Cabinet, who were County Councillors, one of whom was also on the Cabinet at WCC had at a recent Council meeting when this had been considered, voted against the wishes of this Council. In the circumstances Councillor McDonald did not feel that it was unreasonable to ask those Members to resign.

Prior to the debate, Councillor S. R. Colella put forward an amendment to the motion, which was accepted by Councillor McDonald. The amendment stated “that the Leader and Council change the constitution to exclude twin hatters from Cabinet.”

Members questioned whether those Councillors that had been referred to should take part in any debate. A number of Members believed those Cabinet Members should leave the meeting whilst others felt that they should be given the opportunity to defend their position.

Councillor S. J. Baxter suggested that there was a need to “de-personalise” the debate and made reference to the Notice of Motion which had been brought before the Council earlier in the year in respect of LTP4 in response to which the Council had agreed to write to WCC. This written response had not been shared with Members and she was of the view that Members should put their communities first and that, under the circumstances, she did not believe that anyone could have supported LTP4. She was therefore in support of the amendment to the notice of motion which had been put forward.

Following an exchange between several Members, the Chairman reminded the Chamber that it was for Members to decide as to whether they had a pecuniary or other interest in items and whether they chose to declare this and leave the room, she also reminded the Chamber of the Member-to-Member protocol.

Councillor C. J. Bloore provided Members with background information in respect of the work that had been carried out by the Overview and Scrutiny Performance Board at WCC and the proposals which had been put forward by that Committee. Whilst providing this explanation it was highlighted that a number of “dual hatted” Members, who were on the Cabinet at this Council had voted against the amendment from the Overview and Scrutiny Performance Board, which had covered areas that had been discussed by this Council.

After further debate, the Chairman agreed to a short adjournment, during which Councillor Taylor left the meeting. When the meeting resumed Councillor May did not return for the remainder of this item.

The Leader responded to the Notice of Motion by stating that he was disappointed to see it appear in the Council papers as he believed it had been the united Council approach to highways matter that had influence the County Council. The two Cabinet Members had been the most ardent and vociferous in pointing out the lack of County Council response to date. The Leader had been encouraged by the small, but significant changes in the revised document that was voted on at WCC, as it stated “….. a longer term transport strategy was currently under development for Bromsgrove district. This would include a range of options, including access to the motorway network and Highways England’s future Road Investment Strategies, the case for a potential Western bypass for Bromsgrove, passenger transport improvements and a comprehensive active travel (walking and cycling) network to support development growth. These options would be comprehensively assessed. The outcomes of this would feed into future versions of the Worcestershire Local Transport Plan and the Bromsgrove Local Plan.” The Leader added that for those reasons he believed that the document supported at County Council by Bromsgrove Councillors was sufficiently different in relation to Bromsgrove from the original consultation document, that he had advised his Members to vote against this motion.

A number of Members spoke in support of the Leader’s response and were critical of the accusations which had been made in respect of Councillors May and Taylor. It was highlighted that Councillor Taylor had not been present at the Council meeting when this matter had been discussed. It was also highlighted that the document which was discussed at the WCC Council meeting was very different to that which had been provided to Members earlier in the year and debated in this Chamber.

Councillor Mallett responded to a number of points which had been highlighted and reminded Members of particular areas which had been discussed at previous meetings and which needed to be addressed through LTP4. This included air quality and infrastructure in particular. The difficult position placed upon “dual hatted” Members was acknowledged, but he was of the view that Members should support the decisions made by their Districts as their responsibility rested with those residents who had initially elected them and that those residents would feel let down by Members and the Council as a whole. It was believed that this had led to some Members position being compromised and that they should accept that they had not made the decision in the best interests of this Council.

It was noted by Councillor Colella that the WCC Council meeting was available to view on the podcast service which it provided, where it was clear to see which way Members had voted and that the suggestions put forward by the Overview and Scrutiny Performance Board had been over-ruled. He further commented that the benefits of LTP4 appeared to be within Worcester and that Bromsgrove would not see the benefit. Members were reminded that the reason for raising this issue at previous Council meetings was that the residents of Bromsgrove had been let down in the past and to ensure that this did not happen again. The proposal to send the letter which was made at the Council meeting on 24^th April had been made by the Leader and seconded by Councillor May.

In summing up, Councillor McDonald shared his disappointment at the vote which had been taken at WCC and believed that those Members involved had brought this Council’s position into disrepute and that through the amendments suggested by the Overview and Scrutiny Performance Board there had been an opportunity to address the needs of Bromsgrove. He highlighted the work which would be carried out that would benefit other areas of the County and reiterated his disappointment in the lack of support given to those amendments. Councillor McDonald expressed disappointment that those Members had not stood by the decision which had been made in this Chamber and noted that the amended notice of motion would ensure that this did not happen again.

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 18.3 a recorded vote was taken and voting was as follows:

For the recommendation Councillors Baxter, Bloore, Buxton, Colella, Hotham. Jenkins, Mallett, Peter McDonald, Christine McDonald, Thompson, Turner, Van der Plank (12).

Against the recommendation Councillors Allen-Jones, Cooper, Deeming, Denaro, Glass, Laight, Sherrey, Spencer, Thomas, Mike Webb, Shirley Webb, Whittaker, Jones (13)

Abstentions Councillor Peters (1)

The Chairman declared the motion to be lost.

Leisure Centre Operator

At the discretion of the Chairman and as the time allotted to Motions on Notice had passed, the notice of motion from Councillor L. C. R. Mallett was deferred until the next meeting of the Council.

Supporting documents: