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:

Air Pollution

Members considered the following Notice of Motion submitted by Councillor P. McDonald:

“With the undisputed evidence that air pollution well below the legal limit causes not only respiratory problems but heart failure and that many areas within our district are only just below the legal limit; that this Council takes the following action.

1. That it calls upon the Government to reinstate the feed-in tariff project which encouraged householders to install solar panels.

2. That it tasks its officers to report to Council on the feasibility of:

· Purchasing/leasing electric vehicles

· Installing electric chargers on local authority land.

· The Installation of solar panels on its properties.

· Working closely with the county council to restructure roads where necessary to reduce pollution.

Residents are quite rightly concerned regarding the levels of pollution and this council has a duty to take the appropriate steps to reduce pollution and protect the health of those it represents.”

The motion was proposed by Councillor P. McDonald and seconded by Councillor S. Shannon.

In proposing the motion Councillor P. McDonald commented that the Council had already responded to public concern and taken action in respect of single use plastics. He now called upon Members to go further still and begin to address the issue of air pollution. He advised Members that this was something which the public was ever increasingly concerned about and impacted on the health of everyone, but in particular those most vulnerable, the young and elderly. He highlighted the impact of pollution from diesel fumes and that there were four deaths each day in the UK which were attributable to poor air quality. It was noted that despite changes in legislation, these had made little difference and that monies spent on fighting claims in the High Court could be better spent in tackling the problems. He highlighted that campaigns frequently told people to “get on their bikes” or walk more, however people were reluctant to do this due to the poor air quality they would be exposed to during these activities. The Council had shown that it can make a difference with the single use plastics campaign and the introduction of water fountains and he encouraged Members to support this motion.

In seconding the motion Councillor Shannon highlighted that the Council should be taking a lead on this matter in order to influence its residents. He believed that many other local authorities across the country already had a scheme in place. It was noted that this Council did not have any electric charging points on its premises and that at the Council’s previous office site there had been solar panels installed. It was disappointing that this had not been the case at Parkside. It was suggested that it could be made a planning condition to include solar panels in any new developments. It was also noted that Bromsgrove had one of the highest levels of car users in Worcestershire and was one of the most congested parts of the county.

Councillor L. Mallett highlighted that congestion had been a difficult and challenging problem for a number of years in the District and agreed that the restructure of the roads was important along with other actions. He made particular reference to the gridlocked situation in Bromsgrove which had become a daily occurrence. It was important that all the authorities worked together to produce a joined up plan that was supported by everyone. Reference was made to a western relief road, which would restrict the need for traffic to go through the town centre. He concluded that residents were suffering as a consequence and that action needed to be taken.

Councillor S. Baxter understood that there were solar panels at the depot but agreed that it would be useful to have electric charging points not just at the Parkside site but in all the Council’s car parks.

Councillor R. Jenkins proposed an amendment in order to take the motion further, in that all new build homes have solar panels. Officers advised that this was not appropriate as it referred to planning policy, which could not be decided through a notice of motion.

Councillor S. Colella supported the amendment and made reference to the number of Air Quality Management Areas in the District and in particular issues within his Ward.

Reference was made to the Air Quality Task Group which the Overview and Scrutiny Board had commissioned some time ago and the need to work with WCC to address the issues, it was also note that following that Task Group concerns had been raised at the Worcestershire Health Overview and Scrutiny Board but to no avail.

Councillor C. B. Taylor made reference to the suggested amendment, highlighting that this was something which could be addressed through the Review of the Local Plan and that reference was made to the matter within the Issues and Options consultation. If this matter was addressed through that process it would allow the residents of the District to have their say. Councillor Taylor also highlighted that as the Parkside building had listed status it was difficult to accommodate solar panels. Councillor C. Hotham commented that he did not believe it was something which could be solely left to be included within the Planning Review.

It was important for the Council to take responsibility and including more electric charging points would be something which the Council could do to address some of the concerns raised. He understood there were a number of these throughout Pershore and saw no reason why this could not be the case in Bromsgrove too. He made reference to £3m which DEFRA were making available in grants and that he understood that Worcestershire Regulatory Services (WRS) had failed to put forward a bid for any of these monies, which was of concern. He also would be supporting the amendment.

Concerns were raised from Members as to why WRS had not put forward to bid for the DEFRA funds and officers were asked to investigate this matter further.

A further discussion with officers took place in respect of the amendment put forward by Councillor Jenkins in order to agree wording which was acceptable. With the agreement of Councillor P. McDonald, a third recommendation as detailed below was added to his original motion:-

“that the planning mechanism for encouraging solar panels and other sustainable methods on new build developments be referred to be considered as part of the local planning review process.”

On summing up Councillor P. McDonald concluded that he did not believe that people were aware that even when travel in a car they were breathing in polluted air and that he was grateful for the cross party support of his motion.

On being put to the vote the amended motion was carried.

Waste Collection

Members considered the following Notice of Motion submitted by Councillor S. Colella:

“That this Council calls on its Leader to instigate an urgent investigation into the recent failings of the waste collection service and that the findings are then made public.

This investigation should include the exact reasons for the loss in service and detail assurances that the measures that have been put in place to restore service delivery have been properly implemented and what exactly has been done to ensure that this doesn’t happen again

It would appear that the management dashboard system has failed to give us early warning signs in respect of the scheduled volume of bins to be collected, crew availability, sickness, holidays and rising complaints as a result of missed bins and as elected representatives we need to understand how and why this has happened.

Further consideration should be given to the numerous requests for a refund of council tax based on the period of disruption as many Council tax payers are calling for and we need immediate assurances from the Leader and Portfolio Holder.”

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

In proposing the motion Councillor Colella explained that Members should be advised of the reasons why this had happened, as the summer period was known to be when people took holidays and that officers should already have been aware of those people on long term sickness leave. The addition of a small number of people on short term sickness should not have had such a significant impact. He questioned why the grey bins had not been a priority in the first instance and whether the Measures Dashboard tool should have given the Portfolio Holder and Members an early indication of anything going wrong. The Portfolio Holder should have been in direct communication with the relevant officers and if there was a problem with the budget, which had been indicated from the press release, this should have been addressed before reaching the point of service impact. This was a clear indication of issues that had been previously raised in respect of budgets not being managed. This was one of the main public services that residents saw and most of the time it was an excellent service. This was not a criticism of individuals but Members needed to understand what had genuinely gone wrong.

Councillor G. Denaro welcomed Councillor Colella’s comments that this was an excellent service and responded that an immediate investigation had already begun. He had met with the Portfolio Holder and senior officers urgently to discuss what had happened and what was being done to mitigate against future happenings. It was confirmed that a full report would be brought to the Overview and Scrutiny Board and Cabinet, hopefully later in the year. This would contain full details of how it happened and how the Council proposed to move forward.

He did not believe that the Measures Dashboard system would have helped to identify the problem as it was fed reactively. Sickness data showed a large spike following the Bank holiday and this related to a viral infection amongst crews which was a contributory factor. There had been no loss of service as grey bins had been collected, although some re-cycling rounds were delayed, which had now been brought up to date.

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

· The content of the press release, which had referred to budget constraints and the use of agency staff.

· Reference within the agenda pack to budget monitoring and an area within Environmental Services which had made a significant surplus. It was questioned why this could not have been offset against the cost of agency workers.

· Whether this was the beginning of the impact of the current overall financial position impacting of frontline services.

· The need for any investigation and review to be in the public domain in order for residents to see that their complaints have been listened too.

· Queries from residents had been more concerned around the press release which had referred to lack of funds.

Councillor K. J. May responded that, as the Portfolio Holder and Leader had been on leave at the time, she had, as Deputy Leader visited the depot on a number of occasions and spoken to the Head of Service. The circumstances had been exceptional with 13 staff off sick with a viral infection and 8 on annual leave, out of 51 crew members in total. A change in work patterns had also compounded the problems. She had every confidence in the staff who had worked tirelessly to catch up with the collections.

In summing up Councillor Colella thanked Councillor May for stepping in on behalf of the Portfolio Holder and Leader and hoped that the change in work patterns had been addressed to ensure that this did not happen again.

On being put to the vote the motion was lost.

Waste Collection

Members considered the following Notice of Motion submitted by Councillor M. Thompson:

“The summer refuse fiasco has been one in a great number of avoidable crises, resulting from clear mismanagement of the council from the ruling group and senior leaders. The Council therefore resolves that it no longer has confidence in its Leader and calls for his immediate resignation”.

The motion was proposed by Councillor M. Thompson and seconded by Councillor P. McDonald.

In proposing the motion Councillor Thompson stated that the streets had been full of unemptied bins for four weeks. He highlighted that such a significant overspend, as detailed in the local press, so early on in the year was of concern as was also the fact that managers appeared to be unable to plan adequate cover for holiday and sickness leave.

There followed a lengthy debate when a number of areas where discussed, this included:

· The impact of shared services on this Council, predominantly the cost and travel expenses for officers travelling between the two Councils.

· The significant number of people off sick and how this was managed.

· Staff resignations and exit interviews.

· Staff morale and the culture within some departments.

· The use of zero hour’s contracts.

· The impact on the most vulnerable within the community and the accessibility of the hardship fund.

Following the lengthy discussion Councillor Colella requested that the motion be put to the vote, at which point Councillor Thompson was invited to sum up. In doing so he stated that he had highlighted a small number of the issues and problems which needed to be addressed within the Council. He was disappointed that some Members did not recognise, in his opinion, the seriousness of the situation.

On being put to the vote the motion was lost.

Unitary Authorities

Members considered the following Notice of Motion submitted by Councillor C. Hotham:

As local councils come under more and more financial pressure all possible efficiencies/savings must be considered. Across the country some two tier council areas are actively forming unitary authorities which they believe will bring very considerable cost savings.

The motion is:

“BDC will actively engage, through a cross party working group, with the county and other district councils to assess the feasibility and benefit of the formation of one or two unitary authorities for the whole of Worcestershire.”

Before proposing the motion Councillor Hotham asked the Chairman the amount of time left, as it was noted this item had a time restriction of 1 hour. The Chairman confirmed that there was 4 minutes left and in the circumstances offered Councillor Hotham the opportunity to carry over his motion to the next meeting. It was confirmed that it would be the first motion to be considered at that meeting.

Councillor S. Colella asked for it to be minuted that he was unhappy with this decision as it was an important matter that needed to be debated at this evening’s meeting.

Councillor Hotham agreed to his motion being deferred to the November 2018 meeting of Council.

Supporting documents: