Agenda item

To consider the recommendations from the meetings of the Cabinet held on 4^th December 2019 and 15^th January 2020.

 

The recommendations from 15^th January 2020 will be provided as soon as they are available.

Cabinet Recommendations 4^th December 2019

 

Worcestershire Mineral Plan – Statement of Common Ground

Councillor A. Kent as Portfolio Holder for Planning and Regulatory Services presented the report.  It was explained that the matter had been brought before Council for transparency, as he and the Leader were County Councillors.

 

Councillor Kent highlighted a number of areas within the report, namely that the plan contained no new allocations, the Minerals Local Plan covered the whole of the county of Worcestershire and, once adopted, would be a Development Plan Document and form part of the Development Plan for Worcestershire. This meant that it sat alongside the district Local Plans and the Waste Core Strategy and should be used to determine any minerals-related planning matters in the county.  It provided for the steady and adequate supply of minerals in the county until 2035. The Minerals Local Plan would be used by Worcestershire County Council to make decisions about planning applications for mineral extraction, processing and restoration. It would also be used by District Councils to ensure other types of development did not sterilise mineral resources or negatively impact mineral infrastructure.

 

It was further explained that the Minerals Local Plan must enable a steady and adequate supply of minerals from the county to contribute towards supplying both local and national demand. The majority of mineral working in the county was sand and gravel for the aggregate industry.  Brick clay was also worked in the north of the county for brick making, a small amount of silica sand was dug for industrial purposes and a small amount of brine was extracted for making food-grade salt. There are also building stone, crushed rock and coal deposits in the county, but these were not currently worked.

 

The recommendation was proposed by Councillor Kent and seconded by Councillor K. May.

 

RESOLVED that the statement of common ground with regards to the Worcestershire Minerals Local Plan and that delegated authority to the Leader of the Council to sign and send the agreement to Worcestershire County Council on behalf of the Council be approved.

 

Fees and Charges

Councillor G. Denaro, the Portfolio Holder for Finance and Enabling introduced the report and advised that the progress and clarification relating to Fees and Charges, which had commenced last year had continued this year, with the following criteria being used as shown in paragraph 3.2 of the report:

 

·         Service to be subsidised by Council

·         Service to break even

·         Was the service achieving surplus to offset other/overhead costs.

 

As highlighted in Paragraph 3.1 of the report it was also noted that CPI would be used on inflation rates in the future.

Councillor Denaro commented that the Finance and Budget Working Group had once again played a full part in this year’s analysis and Heads of Service had attended to give any explanations required.  Cabinet had also adopted in full, the recommendations from the Overview and Scrutiny Board which were included at page 67 within the agenda pack.

 

Councillor Denaro also took the opportunity thank the Executive Director for Finance and her officers for the time taken in producing this report and the Finance and Budget Working Group.

 

It was explained that unfortunately the wording of the recommendations, which had been agreed by Cabinet had been incorrect and therefore a number of amendments were proposed including, recommendation (a) to enable the fees and charges to be implemented from 1^st April 2020 NOT 1^st February 2020.  As these had not been advised to Members prior to the meeting, it was agreed that there would be a short adjournment to allow Members to consider the amendments.

 

The recommendations were proposed by Councillor Denaro and seconded by Councillor K. May.

 

It was noted that whilst the recommendations had been amended, this did not in any way impact on the actual Fees and Charges detailed in the report.  It was further noted that the Overview and Scrutiny Board’s Finance and Budget Working Group had considered the report in some detail, with the relevant Heads of Service attending to respond to any queries that the Group had.

 

Following the adjournment Members raised a number of queries in respect of the Fees and Charges, including the following:

 

·         The discretionary increase/decrease for Leisure Services – it was explained that this was a commercial decision and was one which had been applied in previous years.

·         The location of the North Bromsgrove car park – it was clarified that this was the new Leisure Centre car park.

·         The recommendation from the Overview and Scrutiny Board in respect of an increase for the Primary Sports Projects – it was  confirmed that this referred specifically to those projects and not the wider fees and charges for Leisure Services.

 

RESOLVED:

 

a)    that Council approve all fees and charges that are included within appendix 1 of the report;

b)    that Council approve the recommendations from the Finance and Budget Working Group as detailed at appendix 1 of the minute;

c)    that Council approve the 20% increase or decrease discretion on Leisure Services fees and charges throughout the financial year; and

d)    that all fees and charges included in Appendix 1 of the report be charged commencing 1^st April 2020.

 

Cabinet Recommendation 15^th January 2020

 

Cofton Hackett & Lickey and Blackwell Neighbourhood Plan

Councillor A. Kent, Portfolio Holder for Planning and Regulatory services explained that the Council had already considered the detailed contents of this plan in February 2019 when it was agreed it could go to examination and referendum, this was not therefore the opportunity to make further changes to the plan. The report confirmed that both of these things have now happened successfully and it was now the Council’s responsibility to confirm the plan as made, which was the same as when a local plan was adopted.  It was noted that 86.35% of residents had backed the plan and Councillor Kent took the opportunity to thank all those involved in the process for an excellent piece of work.

 

The recommendation was proposed by Councillor A. Kent and seconded by Councillor K. May

 

RESOLVED that the Lickey and Blackwell and Cofton Hackett Neighbourhood Development Plan be ‘made’ (formally adopted) immediately in accordance with the relevant legislation.

 

BDC Response to South Worcestershire Development Plan

Councillor A. Kent, Portfolio Holder for Planning and Regulatory Services advised Members that the South Worcestershire Development Plan (SWDP) had been jointly prepared by the three South Worcestershire Councils (SWCs) – Malvern Hills; Worcester City and Wychavon, who had agreed to work together to roll the Plan forward.  It was explained that,  by this Council responding to the other councils plans  the district was protected in the best way possible, by engaging positively in the planning process which was the purpose of the Planning Act and the NPPF requirements. It was appreciated that it might not always seem to be the case, but staying silent on such issues did not help this Council in progressing its own plan as similar discussions would have to take place, and by having positive and constructive relationships with other councils would be of benefit in the long term.

 

The Preferred Options Consultation set out where the SWCs consider new growth should be located, and the changes needed to the policies of the Adopted Plan to ensure they reflected the updated evidence base and national planning policy. The consultation document also considered what infrastructure was required to support new development.

 

Members’ attention was drawn to paragraphs 4, 5, 10 and 12 of the response as detailed at page 227 of the report which clearly stated the Council’s position and view on the document.

 

It was also noted that the Preferred Options Document had a housing target for South Worcestershire of 13,957 dwellings and for 295 hectares of employment land and identified a Spatial Development Strategy and Settlement Hierarchy to direct new growth until 2041.  Section 17 also identified a number of new strategic site allocations to which the majority of new development would be directed.  These included Worcester Parkway which would deliver 5,000 dwellings and 50 hectares of employment land; land at Throckmorton Airfield for 2,000 dwellings and 20 hectares of employment land and an expanded settlement at Rushwick to deliver 1,000 dwellings and 10 hectares of employment land.

 

The recommendation was proposed by Councillor Kent and seconded by Councillor K. May.

 

RESOLVEDthat the officer response to the South Worcestershire Development Plan preferred option consultation be approved by Council as its formal response and that it is confirmed with the South Worcestershire Councils as such.

 

South Staffs Local Plan Preferred Options

Councillor A. Kent, Portfolio Holder for Planning and Regulatory Services advised Members that they were being asked to endorse the officer response.  This was not the full plan and as highlighted in the report there would be further opportunities for the Council to further understand and influence the content of the South Staffordshire Local Plan, which the Spatial Housing and Strategy and Infrastructure Delivery would be part of.  South Staffordshire Council’s current Local Plan Review consultation:  This consultation set out a number of strategic approaches to new housing development, including potential broad locations and areas of search for development.  It did not deal with matters such as employment, retail or other general policy approaches. South Staffordshire set out their commitment to plan to meet their own housing needs, together with a contribution of up to 4,000 dwellings towards the wider needs of the Greater Birmingham housing market area.  By applying the Government’s standard methodology for housing need, South Staffordshire’s need for their proposed plan period of 2018-2037 was 4,845 dwellings, taken together with the contribution to the needs of the wider HMA, the Local Plan review was planning for 8,845 dwellings to 2037.

 

Councillor Kent highlighted the requirements of paragraph 137 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) in relation to the demonstration of exceptional circumstances for any Green Belt releases, and the need for this Council and South Staffordshire Council to consider this under the duty to co-operate moving forward.

 

The recommendation was proposed by Councillor Kent and seconded by Councillor K. May.

 

Members thanked Councillor Kent for a detailed explanation of all the documents he had presented at the meeting and concerns were raised that in some circumstances these had already been presented as the view of the Council, before consideration at a Council meeting.  It was explained that due to deadlines it was not always possible for such documents to be brought before Council in a timely manner, but should any changes be made to the documents during discussions then these would be relayed to the relevant authority and the Council’s response amended.

 

RESOLVED that the officer response to the Spatial Housing Strategy and Infrastructure Delivery consultation be approved by Council as its formal response and that it is confirmed with South Staffordshire as such.

 

Market Hall Site – Meanwhile Use

Councillor K. May as Portfolio Holder for Economic Development advised Members that the Council had commissioned a review of this site (along with the former Dolphin Centre site) and as the Council had limited sites within its direct ownership it was necessary to assess fully all of the potential opportunities available.  Continuing with this as a temporary solution would enable the Council to evaluate the success of the bird box whilst the review of the sites was concluded.

 

The recommendations were proposed by Councillor May and seconded by Councillor G. Denaro.

 

Following presentation of the report, Members discussed a number of areas in more detail, including:

 

·         The history of the market hall site and the need for the Council to create something suitable and permanent on the site which would benefit residents.  It was noted that within the Portfolio Holder’s report, to be considered later on the agenda reference was made to the site being a long standing regeneration opportunity for Bromsgrove Town Centre. 

·         The Leader responded that the suggested options would be a short term fix to ensure that the site no longer remained empty and was being utilised, whilst a full evaluation of other options was being made.

·         It was highlighted that the Overview and Scrutiny Board had been so impressed with the proposal that it had made a recommendations that the pop up site be made permanent.

·         The cost of the evaluation of the site and whether the cost of the pop up option as a short term solution was value for money for residents.  The Leader responded that investment had already been made on the site through Waitrose and that it was envisaged that the full development would take three years and therefore the pop up option would be a good starting point.

·         How the site would be managed – Members were reminded that previously the Council had its own dedicated Economic Development Officer.

·         Whether there was the need to spend any more money on the site should the pop up option be a success.

·         Whether from a legal perspective it was possible to make the pop ups permanent.  It was confirmed that legally the Council was not able to do so, as to make it permanent would mean that planning permission was required.  Should this be successful and one of the options from the wider piece of work being carried out then this would be re-considered at a later date.

·         As broadly speaking Members seemed to be in agreement that the pop up option was a good idea, whether it was possible to class this as a pilot facility with the option that should it be successful the appropriate process would be gone through to make it permanent.

·         The options and the one which Cabinet were proposing, was for a high quality creative space to be developed.

·         Concerns continued to be raised in respect of its temporary nature and whether this would stop people from making a commitment, if there was the potential for it to be developed in another way at a later date.

·         The Leader reiterated that at this stage Council were being asked to agree to a more detailed report being prepared to see what options were available in the long term.  She was concerned that the site in its current state, had a negative impact on the Town Centre and she understood that retailers on the Worcester Road were supportive.

 

The role of the Overview and Scrutiny Board in pre-scrutinising the report and the detailed discussions which had taken place at its meeting in respect of this item.  The importance of the impartiality of the Board as a critical friend and in providing a voice for the residents of the District was also discussed.

 

RESOLVED:

 

a)    that  the approval of Option 1 as the preferred option be implemented and a release of £110k from balances to meet the required remaining funding for 2019/20; and

b)    that delegated authority to the Chief Executive, following consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Economic Development, the Town Centre and Strategic Partnerships to implement Option 1 be approved.

 

Worcestershire Regulatory Services Joint Board

Councillor A. Kent as Portfolio Holder for Planning and Regulatory Services explained that Members were being asked to agree the budget for the services provided by Worcestershire Regulatory Services, as detailed in the supplementary agenda 2 papers.  The full report had been provided in the main agenda pack.  It was noted that efficiencies had been made where possible and that this was the first year, in a number of years, when a small increase had been requested.  Full details of what that increased would specifically cover were provided by Councillor Kent.

 

The recommendations were proposed by Councillor Kent and seconded by Councillor G. Denaro.

 

RESOLVED that Council approve the following for 2020/21:

 

a)    the base revenue partner contributions for 2020/21-2022/23;

 

Bromsgrove District Council	£439k
Malvern Hills District Council	£386k
Redditch Borough Council	£529k
Worcester City Council	£499k
Wychavon District Council	£701k
Wyre Forest District Council	£463k

 

b)     the partner percentage allocations for 2020/21 onwards;

 

	%
Bromsgrove District Council	14.55
Malvern Hills District Council	12.79
Redditch Borough Council	17.53
Worcester City Council	16.54
Wychavon District Council	23.24
Wyre Forest District Council	15.35

 

c)    the additional partner liabilities for 2020/21 in relation to unavoidable salary pressure and increase in WRS pension forward funding rate;

 

Bromsgrove District Council	£13k
Malvern Hills District Council	£11k
Redditch Borough Council	£16k
Worcester City Council	£15k
Wychavon District Council	£21k
Wyre Forest District Council	£14k
Total	£90k

 

d)    the additional partner liabilities for 2020/21 in relation to three additional Technical Officers;

 

Council	Tech Officer Primary Authority – 3 Months £000	Tech Officer Animal Activity                 £000	Tech Officer Gull Control £000
Bromsgrove District Council	1	6
Malvern Hills District Council	1	9
Redditch Borough Council	1	1
Worcester City Council	1	4	30
Wychavon District Council	2	9
Wyre Forest District Council	1	4
Total	7	33	30

 

e)    the 2020/21 gross expenditure budget of £3,547k as shown in

  Appendix 1 to the report; and

 

f)     the 2020/21 income budget of £530k as shown in Appendix 3 to the

     report.

 

Quarter 2 Finance Monitoring Report

Councillor G. Denaro, Portfolio Holder for Finance and Enabling presented the Quarter 2 Finance Monitoring Report for Members consideration. He highlighted that the financial figures for Quarter 2 continued to show healthy progress. Whilst a proportion of the underspend projected of £360k was due to vacancies there had been a good pick up in Development Control, with large applications being received. The management review (if approved) would also contribute £85k. It was also noted that identified savings continued to be on track with £181k against a budgeted amount of £166k.

 

It was also confirmed that a grant of £50k for Development Control had been obtained, which was included within the recommendations before Members.  It was also noted that the reprofiling of the Capital Programme at Appendix 4 had impacted on the interest budget and which had been amended accordingly.

 

The recommendations were proposed by Councillor Denaro and seconded by Councillor K. May.

 

RESOLVED:

 

a)    that an increase in the 2019-20 revenue budget of £50k forDevelopment Management due to receipt of a planning enforcement grant from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government be approved; and

b)    thereprofiling of the capital programme due to officers completing a full review of the Capital Budget for 2019/20 – 2022/23 as detailed in appendix 4 of the report be approved.

 

Medium Term Financial Plan

Councillor G. Denaro, Portfolio Holder for Finance and Enabling, advised Members that the Cabinet and other attending Members had discussed the merits of the proposed Bromsgrove Heat Network project. After much discussion it had been agreed that as there were still a number of pertinent questions which remained unanswered that the item would be deferred pending further information. The recommendation in the Cabinet papers therefore would not be put to Council.

 

Councillor M. Thompson confirmed that the Overview and Scrutiny Board’s Finance and Budget Working Group had also discussed this matter in detail and thanked the Leader for allowing those present at Cabinet to take part in the debate on this matter.

 

Management Review

The Leader introduced the report in respect of the proposed Management Review, highlighting that Members were aware of the desire to review the Management situation which had been delayed due to several limiting factors. However, the Cabinet were now in a position to proceed and Members were able to see from the report that the outcome of the review had resulted in a reduction to the management structure of three positions, brought about by different processes.

 

The report showed clearly the redistribution of various functions which had meant an increased workload across Heads of Service positions and the creation of a Financial and Customer Services role. Savings from the restructure proposed would amount to £54,221 for Bromsgrove District Council as listed on P. 314 paragraph 3.7 of the main agenda pack.  It was noted that these would add to the considerable savings made over the years and would give an annual saving of £1.06m per annum.  It was confirmed that the proposals needed to go out to consultation once approval was given.  The Leader advised that she did not propose to repeat what was in this report but endorsed fully the ‘light approach’ which had been adopted for the proposals.

 

The recommendations were proposed by Councillor May and seconded by Councillor G. Denaro.

 

It was confirmed that the figures referred to on pages 314 and 315 on the main agenda pack referred to the HRA account, which was specific to Redditch Borough Council.

 

RESOLVEDthat the proposed changes to the Single Management Structure attached at Appendix C and the formal consultation with the affected staff and Trades Unions be agreed.