Agenda item

Motions on Notice

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:

Water Fountains

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

“That we call upon the Cabinet Member responsible to consider implementing a programme for the installation of water fountains throughout our recreation grounds.”

The motion was proposed by Councillor P. McDonald and seconded by Councillor C. McDonald.

In proposing the motion Councillor McDonald referred to the previous decision by the Council to no longer use single use plastics at its sites and advised that the damage to the environment from single use plastics had been well documented in recent months. He believed that this was the next step in assisting its residents to reduce the number of single use water bottles for example and also to contribute to the reduction in obesity in children as he believed that by providing water fountains in its parks and open spaces then it would encourage people of all ages to choose the healthy option of water rather than sugary drinks. Similar schemes had been successful in a number of other local authorities and there were now clean modern water fountains which could be installed successfully.

In seconding the motion Councillor C. McDonald informed Members that she believed this was an important step in helping residents live a healthier life, by providing fresh water whilst they were being active within the parks and would reduce the need to buy single use plastics as Councillor P. McDonald had highlighted.

Councillor B. Cooper, Portfolio Holder for Finance and Resources spoke in support of the motion and reiterated the various benefits. He highlighted that there were cost implications and first estimates appeared to be between £3.5k and £6k per fountain, the Council would therefore need to consider the cost implications against the various benefits before making a final decision.

Councillor P. Whittaker concurred with Councillor Cooper and was happy to support the motion subject to detailed costings being provided. However, Councillor Whittaker commented that not all parks may be suitable for water fountains. It was therefore suggested that a report be brought to Cabinet for consideration in due course.

On being put to the vote the Chairman declared the motion to be agreed.

BDC Planning Review

Members considered the following notice of motion, submitted by Councillor C. Hotham:

“The recent exposure by the members of the Independent group of the potential conflict of interest surrounding the BDC plan review is deeply concerning. This has been brought about by the Council employing the co-author of the Hearn-Wood study as consultant to advise on our own plan review. It appears these commissions ran concurrently. This has created the impossible circumstance whereby the average Bromsgrove resident is highly likely to loose faith in the impartiality of the plan review process. It is therefore only right and proper that: “This council suspends the entire plan review until such time as residents, developers and elected members can have faith that, via an independent audit, the review is being and has been conducted in an open and transparent manner and that no perceived or actual conflict of interest exist.”

The motion was proposed by Councillor C. Hotham and seconded by Councillor S. Baxter.

In proposing the motion Councillor Hotham highlighted a number of concerns in respect of what he believed to be a conflict of interest between G. L. Hearn who had prepared the report to which he referred and the use of Wood in preparing a report for the Council as part of the process for reviewing the Local Plan. The Hearn report referred to was signed off by both G. L. Hearn and Wood and made suggestions of a large number of houses from the Birmingham area and had proposed sites for these to be built in the Bromsgrove District.

Councillor Hotham explained that it had become apparent at the Strategic Planning Steering Group meetings that the consultants had also been used to carry out work for this Council’s Plan Review. It was only after further investigation that it had become clear to Councillor Hotham that Wood had been involved in the G. L. Hearn report, and that this had not been made clear from the outset. Councillor Hotham explained why he believed there was a conflict of interest and questioned whether it was appropriate, as they would have access to potentially confidential information whilst preparing the sustainability appraisal, which would look at potential areas for housing. This appeared to be clearly in conflict with the work of the G. L. Hearn report as it entailed looking at potential sites and undertaking the Green Belt Review. Councillor Hotham was of the view that there must be a conflict when Wood had also undertaken work for neighbouring authorities.

Councillor Hotham went on to provide details of the procurement process for the contract for this work, which he had had the opportunity to examine following raising these concerns. He explained that three companies had put forward proposals, all of which seemed more than capable of carrying out the work. However, he highlighted what appeared to be a number of discrepancies in the process and quotations received and he suggested that this should be investigated further through the Audit, Standards and Governance Committee.

In the absence of the Portfolio Holder for Planning and Strategic Housing, the Leader provided a detailed response to the motion as follows:

Context – a sustainability appraisal (SA) was a part of the evidence base that would underpin the progress of the Plan Review to ensure that the sustainability factors had been fully considered at each stage of the Plan preparation process. The SA was only one part of a very lengthy and exhaustive process and was not in itself the sole determinant of any policy decision or land allocation.

Scope of SA – an SA was a highly technical, specialist and niche piece of work, which was tailored specifically to each individual client, its location and the detailed extent of the appraisal needed. An SA from regional level to District level was a sifting process whereby the level of detail taken into consideration increased at a more local level and was being tested against specific local objectives, not overarching regional objectives. Each iteration of the SA was published for public consultation, which offered an opportunity to challenge the assessment.

SA Objectives – an SA was carried out against a framework of objectives and decision making criteria which was specific to the Plan/Study being assessed. The SA framework included 15 objectives and 78 decision making criteria questions which guided the assessor’s thought process during the SA. The Strategic Growth Study SA Report had 9 SA objectives and 14 decision making criteria. There was therefore no like for like comparison between the two.

Why Wood – the explanation of the proposed approach to undertaking this work for the Council was well set out with clear explanation of what would be undertaken at each stage and the outputs the Council could expect. Wood was able to offer a vast resource pool to ensure work for the Council was undertaken in a timely manner. The vast pool of staff resources also ensured that different staff could be drafted in to a project should a potential conflict of interest occur.

Why not another consultant – the third placed consultant (RSK ADAS) did not present a very clear understanding of the brief and there were concerns relating to the underestimate of hours allocated to specific tasks. Some aspects of the brief were not responded to at all. The second placed consultant (Lepus) had the same level of expertise at the most senior level (Project Director) as Wood. However, there were concerns relating to the level of experience of the Project Leader at Lepus (only two years), compared with the approximately 20 years at Wood. In addition, the team was very small with no additional staff resources available.

Conflicts of Interest – there was a limited number of consultancies which carried out this specialist technical work and inevitably there would be working overlaps between local authorities irrespective of whether regional or local level work was being undertaken. Both Wood and Lepus had undertaken SA work at the regional level. The question of conflict of interest was raised in the ITT document, to which all responded that there was none in relation to undertaking the SA of the emerging District Plan. Wood acknowledged that within the company, they represented HCA in relation to land holdings at Barnsley Hall. There is no evidence to suggest that the conclusions reached in the G L Hearn Report were in any way beneficial to the HCA in relation to land at Barnsley Hall.

Professional integrity – as professional planners, both Council Officers and consultants were bound by the RTPI professional code of conduct.

The Leader went on to say that he did not believe that Councillor Hotham realised that professionals were bound by a code of ethics and were answerable to the regulatory bodies of their profession. All professional had to deal with what might be seen by outsiders to be conflicts of interest. However, any transgression of the rules within regard to conflict of interest would lead to suspension by the relevant professional body. The Leader believed that the professional ethics of Wood were being denigrated without any evidence and as such believed this was a dangerous path to follow.

Following presentation of the motion and the response form the Leader, Members discussed a number of areas in more detail, this included:

· Concerns around the perception with residents and the need for this matter to be given further consideration before taking the matter further and the need to put the interests of residents first.

· What clearly appeared to be a conflict and the need for this to be clearly explained to give everyone the confidence that the matter had been dealt with appropriately.

· The tendering process – the need for this to be investigated to ensure that the correct procedures were followed and the right company for the work had been appointed.

· That the process should be suspended under an investigation by the Audit, Standards and Governance Committee has been carried out.

· Concerns around the impact on the reputation of the Council.

Councillor P. Whittaker proposed an amendment to the motion in that the process should not be suspended, but the LGA should be asked to clarify the positon in respect of conflict of interest and a report be brought back to Council in respect of this.

Councillor M. Sherrey seconded the proposed amendment.

In speaking to the amendment Councillor L. Mallett raised concerns that from the information provided at this meeting, which was now in the public domain, that the Council it appeared to have engaged an organisation who were “working for the other side” with a procurement process that also appeared not to have been followed appropriately. He questioned whether this in particular could leave the Council open to a legal challenge from the unsuccessful contractors and therefore the Council should suspend the process until the external auditors had looked at the matter to ensure that the appropriate process had been followed, as it was important that the Council was seen by its residents to be doing the right thing. Councillor Whittaker responded that he was happy for this investigation to be carried out by the external auditors.

The Leader responded that he understood the procurement of this work had in fact been carried out by Worcestershire County Council and therefore suggested that the matter needed further investigation before being brought back to a future Council meeting, but he could not agree to the suspension of the Plan Review.

In summing up, Councillor Hotham thanked Members for their cross party support and highlighted that it was a conflict of interest from Wood and not from the Council’s officers. He was happy with the suggestion from Councillor Whittaker that the external auditors investigated the procurement process to ensure that this had been followed correctly.

A point of clarification was raised in respect of the appointment of Wood and the contract. The Monitoring Officer confirmed that the contract had been awarded and as such caution should be shown in respect of conditionality.

New Homes

Members considered the following notice of motion, submitted by Councillor M. Thompson:

Council Notes

· Bromsgrove District Council closed its Housing Revenue Account when it transferred its housing stock to Bromsgrove District Housing Trust.

· The LGA states “local government shares the collective national ambition to build one million new homes, which will only be achieved with strong national and local leadership working together. As house builders, housing enablers, and landlords; as planners, place-shapers, and agents of growth, transport and infrastructure; as responsible guardians to the vulnerable and the homeless; and as democratically accountable to communities – local government is at the heart of the housing solution.”

· Local authorities, such a Bromsgrove District Council, are limited in how much they can build because of the cap on borrowing within Local Authority Housing Revenue Accounts.

· In Autumn Budget 2017, the Government raised the borrowing cap for councils in areas of high affordability, like Bromsgrove, by £1 billion to help achieve its target of 300,000 new homes per year. Private housebuilders have consistently provided 150,000 units per year, so the target is unlikely to be met without a significant increase in supply by local authorities.

· The precarious financial position of local authorities, such as Bromsgrove District Council, and the necessity to identify and pioneer new areas of income generation.

Council Believes

· Bromsgrove residents deserve the opportunity to live in good quality and affordable homes in Bromsgrove District.

· The only way for Bromsgrove District Council to meet its housing responsibility to its residents is if it starts building council houses again.

· If Bromsgrove District Council builds council homes, not only will they help provide an essential service to its residents, but also create a much-needed source of income.

Council Resolves

· That Bromsgrove District Council sets up a new Housing Revenue Account.

· To form a cross party committee, including the leader and cabinet member for housing, to formulate a policy paper that prepares the Council to enter the housing market and build council houses on its own or in partnership or with social housing associations.

To write to the Prime Minister, Chancellor of the Exchequer and Secretary of State for Housing to call for the Local Authority Housing Revenue Account borrowing cap to be removed.

The motion was proposed by Councillor M. Thompson and seconded by Councillor C. Bloore.

In proposing the motion Councillor Thompson highlighted the lack of social housing problem within the District and the housing that was available was not fit for purpose. Whilst he accepted that there was a national Government drive to build new houses, the Council needed to ensure that opportunities of investment met the needs of those most vulnerable residents and that the Council must ensure that it meets the needs of its residents. By building houses for those in need it would contribute towards the economic development of Bromsgrove and much needed improvements to the infrastructure.

In the absence of the Portfolio Holder for Strategic Planning and Housing, the Leader responded to the motion and advised that it had given him the opportunity to explain how the Council intended to increase the number of homes available to local residents. He reminded Members that the Council had transferred its stock to BDHT in 2004 and the Housing Revenue Account was closed down. Members were advised that the housing sector had changed significant since then, including the subsequent switch to self-financing for stock holding authorities in 2012. The Leader went on to say that given that the Council wanted to boost housing supply locally, building directly-owned council homes was an option that could be pursued and would require the opening of a Housing Revenue Account in line with the requirements of Part 2 of the Housing Act 1985. However, it was important to note that this option came with a number of ongoing challenges which were well-documented, including restrictions on rent levels, limited borrowing and the impact of right to buy. The Council had explored how other councils in a similar position had tackled this situation and it had become clear that a large number of authorities had opened housing companies to stimulate housing growth. Such companies take on ownership and management of the properties created, an arrangement which was permitted under Sections 1-7 of the Localism Act 2011.

This allowed for a far more flexible approach to housing delivery. Councils were able to use it to influence the private rented sector or to provide a mixture of affordable rent and sale, plus open market rent and sale. The Leader advised that other benefits included jobs and regeneration locally and the potential to generate an income stream. There were also numerous funding streams which could be pursued through this route that would not be available via a Housing Revenue Account. The Council’s bid for support to develop Burcot Lane via the Homes England Accelerated Growth Fund was one such example as the funding criteria prevented Housing Revenue Account applications.

The Leader advised that when a comparison of the two options was made the evidence suggested that launching the Council’s own housing company was the most effective way of moving forward. He concluded by noting that establishing housing companies was a way of increasing housing numbers had seen cross party support. The University College London Published a report in December 2017 entitled “Local Authority Direct Provision of Housing” which included a snapshot of political control in 80 councils who had opened housing companies, 40% of which had been Labour-controlled.

The Leader concluded that it was his intention to involve all Group Leaders in the Housing plans and he would continue to do so, he did not therefore believe a committee was necessary and the Council would continue to follow the route of a housing company which gave the Council more flexibility.

During the ensuing debate a number of areas were discussed in more detail, including:

· Concerns that properties would be purchased and rented out at rates which those in most need would be unable to afford and the need for homes for first time buyers.

· The number of affordable homes included within developments throughout the district and the need for this figure to be increased if the Council were to meet the needs of its residents.

· The length of time some people were on the housing waiting list and the increase in homelessness, the use of hostels and “sofa surfers” of all ages.

· The percentage of households in Bromsgrove who were unable to afford to buy a property and the percentage of secondary rented accommodation.

· The level of earnings in the District in contrast to those outside of it and the impact this had on the housing market.

· The impact on families of the “bedroom” tax.

· Young people and their families moving outside of the area due to the lack of affordable housing.

· The inability of the Council to be able to meet its housing needs.

Councillor K. May, Deputy Leader and Portfolio Holder for Economic Development explained that by going down the route suggested by the Leader then the Council would be in a better position to ensure that any new houses met the needs of its residents and contribute towards the economic growth of the District together with rebalancing the housing market. A housing company would be able to help address the current problems, which would not be the case with an HRA, as it would give much more flexibility.

A number of Members were keen to see more detail around the suggested plans put forward by the Leader and asked that a report be brought to Council in order to have an opportunity to see the plans in more detail. The Leader explained that the proposal for the Burcot Lane site would be for one bedroomed flats and that a meeting had been arranged for 2^nd July after which he hoped he would have further information; but was unable to confirm at this stage, whether a report would be available for the July Council meeting. However, a report would be brought before Council as soon as possible.

In summing up Councillor Thompson reminded Members that everyone was guilty of taking their home for granted, but some people were unable to be in that position for whatever reason and it was the responsibility of the Council to meet the needs of those residents.

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

For the motion Councillors Baxter, Bloore, Buxton, Hotham, Mallett, P. McDonald, C McDonald, Peters, Turner, Thompson, Van der Plank. (11).

Against the motion Councillors Allen-Jones, Cooper, Deeming, Denaro, Dent, Glass, Jones, Laight, May, Sherrey, Thomas, M. Webb, S. Webb, Whittaker (14).

Abstentions Councillor Jenkins (1).

The Chairman declared the motion to be lost.

Supporting documents: