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:

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.”

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

In proposing the motion Councillor Hotham commented that it was important to ensure that local government in Worcestershire was placed on a secure footing whilst delivering good public services. The extent to which a single or two unitary authorities in the county would resolve the financial difficulties facing local government needed to be clarified. Councillor Hotham explained that he was not necessarily advocating the introduction of one or more unitary authorities but he felt that this subject had not been investigated enough to date and it was important to be prepared in case at a later date Worcestershire was placed in a position where one or more unitary authorities would need to be introduced. Worcestershire County Council was aiming to save £32 million and this could have implications for public services moving forward. Councillor Hotham quoted research undertaken by PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PWC) which had found that significant financial savings could be achieved when unitary Councils were introduced. Members were also asked to note that two-tier local government could be much more confusing for residents than unitary authorities as it was not always clear to local communities which Council delivered which services.

In seconding the motion Councillor Baxter commented that it was important to investigate the potential to introduce a unitary or multiple unitary authorities in Worcestershire in more detail. It would take time to introduce a single or multiple unitary authorities in the county. Bromsgrove District Council’s boundaries were bordered by Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council, Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council and Birmingham City Council. In every case the Council Tax they charged their residents for properties was lower than in Bromsgrove district. Councillor Baxter suggested that the public should have a right to a say over whether there continued to be two-tier local government in the area and an explanation as to why two-tier authority working was potentially more expensive than having a unitary authority. There was the potential to make financial savings from replacing the six district Councils and one County Council with a single or multiple unitary authorities.

Councillor G. Denaro noted that having listened closely to the points raised in the motion he would always be willing to engage with any other parties who could help to improve the Council’s efficiency and provision of services to the authority’s customers. The question of unitary authorities had been raised by another Councillor at a recent meeting of the Worcestershire Leaders’ Board. During that meeting all the Leaders had confirmed that their current plans were to continue to find ways to work together to deliver services across two tiers in Worcestershire. It had been made clear during that meeting that some Leaders would not entertain the possibility of one or more unitary authorities at this stage across Worcestershire. Members were advised that the legislation to form a unitary authority would be changing from 1^st April 2019. Under the Cities and Government Devolution Act 2016 the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government would no longer have the power to force a merger of district and County Councils without the agreement of all parties. This would mean that in future unanimous agreement from all parties would be required to form a unitary authority and this would not be achievable at the present time. In this context Councillor Denaro noted that he could not support the motion as he believed he would receive a negative response to the proposal.

Councillor M. Thompson commented that he felt that a decision that would fundamentally change local government in Worcestershire needed a decision to be taken by the public through a local referendum. As this was not proposed in the motion he advised that his group would be abstaining on the vote.

Speaking in a personal capacity Councillor B. T. Cooper commented that he was pleased that the topic of unitary authorities for Worcestershire had been raised. Increasingly over his terms of office as a district Councillor, Councillor Cooper had become concerned that the two-tier local government arrangement did not work well; this had been much more apparent as the County Council had slipped into severe financial difficulties. Councillor Cooper suggested that it was unwieldy, unnecessarily bureaucratic, inefficient, expensive, led to duplication of effort and blurring of accountability and also led to conflicts of interests as well as actual conflicts as demonstrated by the problems between Bromsgrove District Council and Worcestershire County Council over roads and infrastructure. Councillor Cooper expressed the view that more than half of the population of England were served well by unitary authorities, which were responsible for and accountable to residents for all local government services. The difficulties faced by Worcestershire County Council needed to focus minds on possible solutions, which inevitably included the creation of unitary authorities. Councillor Cooper noted that his preference would be for the creation of two Worcestershire unitary authorities, at a time when there was a new settlement on local government finance by central government. However, given the information highlighted by the Leader, Councillor Cooper concluded that the motion might not be helpful at this time and so he would not be able to support the motion. He expressed the view that he hoped that the matter would return to the Council for active discussion at some time in the not too distant future.

During consideration of this item Councillor K. Van Der Plank commented that Members had a responsibility to the tax payer to ensure that best value for money was achieved when spending public money. Frontline services needed to be protected and difficult conversations needed to be held about the future. Councillor Van Der Plank suggested that it was important to start holding these conversations in order to encourage the Leaders of the other Councils in Worcestershire to start thinking differently about the potential for a unitary authority or a number of unitary authorities to be introduced in Worcestershire.

In speaking on the motion Councillor S. Colella suggested that a unitary authority would be closer to the people than the current two-tier system and would be more accountable. However, Councillor C. Allen-Jones commented that a district Council was closer to the people than a unitary authority and this would be increasingly important as more housing developments arising from commitments in other local authority areas occurred.

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

For the Motion: Councillors S. Baxter, S. Colella, C. Hotham, R. Jenkins, S. Peters, L. Turner and K. Van Der Plank. (7)

Against the Motion: Councillors C. Allen-Jones, B. Cooper, R. Deeming, G. Denaro, R. Dent, J. Griffiths, H. Jones, R. Laight, K. May, M. Sherrey, C. Taylor, P. Thomas, M. Webb, S. Webb and P. Whittaker. (15)

Abstaining on the Motion: Councillors C. Bloore, M. Buxton, M. Glass, C. McDonald, P. McDonald, S. Shannon and M. Thompson. (7)

The Chairman declared the Motion to be lost.

Zero Hours Contracts

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

“We call upon the Chief Executive to take whatever measures are required and legally permissible to stop the Council’s use of Zero Hour Contracts for it’s employees.”

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

In proposing the motion Councillor McDonald commented that it was only when one lived with the consequences of having a zero hours contract that one understood the impact that this could have on a person’s health and wellbeing. People on zero hours’ contracts could be provided with only a day’s notice that they would be required at work and this did not provide either stability or certainty in respect of their future wages. Bromsgrove District Council had been known to be a good employer. However, Councillor McDonald expressed the view that the use of zero hours’ contracts by the Council was exploiting workers and he suggested that all staff needed to be provided with more secure contracts of employment.

In seconding the Motion Councillor C. McDonald noted that she viewed zero hours’ contracts as a cruel abuse of staff. People employed on zero hours contracts generally could not plan their lives as they were never certain when they would be required to work. Staff on zero hours’ contracts were not eligible for redundancy or pension payments and this could cause stress. Members were asked to note that the Council’s Equality Strategy stated that it was in the local authority’s interests for all staff to be treated fairly. Councillor McDonald questioned whether the Council was meeting this commitment if some staff were employed on zero hours’ contracts.

In speaking on the Motion Councillor G. Denaro explained that the Electoral Registration Officer and Returning Officer employed a small number of casual staff to help with elections and the annual electoral canvass. For the canvass in Bromsgrove in 2018 the Council had employed casual staff who had delivered Household Enquiry Forms to properties. All these casual staff, who were paid the national living wage, helped with general canvass work as well as telephone canvassing and data entry. There were no set hours for this work just a requirement for the work to be completed within an 8 week period. All of the staff involved in the work understood that by its very nature this would be very short-term. Under these circumstances Councillor Denaro commented that he was not in a position to support the Motion.

Councillor P. McDonald subsequently raised concerns that only one member of staff in the Electoral Services team had a permanent contract of employment. In response to a Point of Order raised by Councillor K. May the Monitoring Officer explained that every member of staff in the Electoral Services team, apart from those employed specifically to deliver the electoral canvass, were employed on permanent contracts. The casual workers employed to deliver the electoral canvass could not be employed for longer than 8 weeks as in line with national practice that was the length of time that the canvass lasted.

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

For the Motion: Councillors S. Baxter, C. Bloore, M. Buxton. C. Hotham, R. Jenkins, C. McDonald, P. McDonald, S. Shannon, M. Thompson and L. Turner. (10)

Against the Motion: Councillors C. Allen-Jones, B. Cooper, R. Deeming, G. Denaro, R. Dent, M. Glass, J. Griffiths, H. Jones, R. Laight, K. May, M. Sherry, C. Taylor, P. Thomas, M. Webb, S. Webb and P. Whittaker. (16)

Abstaining on the Motion: Councillors S. Colella, S. Peters and K. Van Der Plank. (3)

The Chairman declared the Motion to be lost.

Business Rates Relief

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

“In 2017 the chancellor committed a £435 million business rate relief package intended on helping high street businesses. The communities secretary at the time, Sajid Javid, promised “absolutely no delay” in allocating and using the money. However, a table of “worst offending councils” shows that Bromsgrove District Council failed to spend almost 70% of their grant.

Council notes this waste of central government funding and will set up a cross party investigation into how this was allowed to happen.”

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

In proposing the motion Councillor Thompson commented that the Government had decided how to allocate the business rate relief package based on a calculation of those businesses affected by a higher increase. Councils had been invited to develop their own criteria which would set out how that funding should be spent. An independent business advisor had informed a number of Councils that the funding should be redistributed amongst affected businesses to help local communities. Councillor Thompson commented that Bromsgrove District Council had not followed this approach and had eventually returned some of the funding back to the Government.

In seconding the Motion Councillor P. McDonald noted that in his view the funding from the Government should have been invested in regenerating Bromsgrove town centre. The funding could also have helped to subsidise parking in the town centre and thereby help to attract more visitors.

In responding to the Motion the Portfolio Holder for Finance and Enabling commented that the scheme had had set criteria. The grant funding needed to be allocated to businesses with increasing rates and the Council could not determine how this funding was spent. In 2016/17 business rates had been the subject of a revaluation process. As a result in 2017/18 some business ratepayers had faced increases in their rate demands, some had reductions and some had found that their rates had remained at a similar level as it had been in previous years. This meant that business rate payers who would benefit from a reduction in rates might have to pay a premium which was added to their rates bill and would reduce over time until the new rate charge was reached, which, was in line with statutory requirements. Councillor Cooper commented that the grant funding provided by the Government to local authorities for business rate relief in 2017/18 was aimed at providing support to ratepayers who were most impacted by the revaluation. Therefore relief could only be awarded to ratepayers who faced an increase in the rates in 2017/18. Businesses which had to pay a transitional premium were excluded from the business rate relief scheme because they had a reduction in their initial rate demand. In considering the scheme, Bromsgrove District Council had to balance the interests of all of its business ratepayers. Therefore, the scheme had to be fair, so that any relief provided to businesses facing an increase in their rates, could not be seen to give them a competitive advantage over those whose rates were on a downward trajectory.

Councillor Cooper commented that the Government’s consultation on the operation of the rate relief scheme had wanted local authorities to target funding at the rate payers who faced the most significant increases in their rates liability. When allocating funding and identifying these ratepayers, the government used an increase of 12.5 per cent. Therefore, the Council’s scheme provided relief where the business rate increase was more than 12.5 per cent. However, it had turned out that as a result of the revaluation process, Bromsgrove as well as Redditch had had some of the biggest cuts in the country and the biggest in the West Midlands, so far fewer businesses had qualified for relief than anticipated. Out of the total 3,125 business ratepayers in Bromsgrove 89 per cent had a decrease or no increase in their rates in 2017/18. Only 332 businesses had had an increase of 1 per cent or more on their business rates, though this included rates that were paid on businesses or premises that would not be included in the scheme, such as public bodies, branches of national chains, advertising spaces, car parking spaces, phone masts and empty properties. With this in mind, together with the 12.5 per cent threshold, only 37 business ratepayers qualified for relief and a total of £46,300, or 34.4 per cent of the total grant, was paid out. The funding that had not been used had been returned to the Government at the end of the financial year and could not be retained by the Council to use for other purposes.

In conclusion Councillor Cooper noted that the Council had written to the government to request that a review be undertaken of the conditions for giving grants in respect of rate relief to businesses. By the date of the meeting no official response had been received. The Council continued to face significant financial challenges but these, together with the situation in respect of the rate relief, had been reported to the external auditors and this had subsequently been reported to the Audit, Standards and Governance Committee.

In responding to Councillor Cooper’s comments Councillor Thompson noted that an independent business advisor, Mr. Sloan, was observing proceedings and would be happy to provide advice to Members. A request was made by Councillor S. Baxter for an adjournment but the Chairman noted that no public speakers had been booked for the meeting and she had not been notified in advance that the gentleman wanted to speak.

Following further debate on this subject, and after a number of Members had requested an opportunity to speak to Mr. Sloan, there was an adjournment from 19.55 to 20.05.

Once the meeting had recommenced Councillor S Baxter proposed an amendment to the Motion. This amendment was seconded by Councillor M. Thompson.

The amended Motion read as follows:

Council notes this waste of central government funding and will refer this matter to the Overview and Scrutiny Board to investigate how this was allowed to happen.”

In seconding the amendment Councillor Thompson noted that the scheme had not had set criteria. He suggested that if the Council was confident that the correct process had been followed there should be no opposition to a cross-party investigation of the matter.

Members subsequently voted to support the amendment to the Motion.

On being put to the vote the Motion was approved.

Issues and Options Consultation

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

“The Issues and Options consultation finished on the 19th November. A number of issues have be raised which makes the Bromsgrove Development Plan instantly unsafe.

At a recent Overview and Scrutiny meeting with WCC Highways Officers it was generally accepted that senior Officers failed to grasp the many issues with Highways across the district.

Recent Freedom of Information requests and investigations have found that Nest6 (within the LTP4) is flawed and has no substance to resolve highways issues along the A456 and A491.

Wyre Forest DC have begun its consultation which will see several thousand housing being built along the Lea Castle and Hussum Way settlements. There are no Highway Investment Plans to direct the undoubted several thousand extra vehicles away from the A456.

The LTP4 has been proved not to be fit for purpose as a strategic plan to the Bromsgrove Development Plan that will ultimately be the undoing of getting the Bromsgrove Development Plan approved.

Redditch BC has been exposed for over estimating housing needs to the tune of c2600. This is roughly equal to BDC’s housing needs.

The motion is

The Council re-engages with WCC on a sustainable highways investment plan that will not only address the current overcapacity of the road network but to prioritise investment across the district and re-consults on the Issues and Options.

And

The Redditch alarmingly over estimated, overspill housing needs is replaced with Bromsgrove’s Housing needs so that the Development Plan can be fast tracked to adoption and saving Bromsgrove’s Greenbelt.”

As the hour available for the consideration of Motions had passed, Councillor Colella confirmed that he was happy for the Motion to be considered at the following meeting of Council.

Supporting documents: