Agenda item - Questions on Notice

Agenda item

Questions on Notice

To deal with any questions on notice from Members of the Council, in the order in which they have been received.

 

A period of up to 15 minutes is allocated for the asking and answering of questions.  This may be extended at the discretion of the Chairman with the agreement of the majority of those present.

 

Minutes:

The Chairman explained that 8 Questions on Notice had been received for consideration at the meeting and would be considered in the order in which they had been submitted.  A maximum of 15 minutes was allocated to consideration of these questions and the answers provided and there were no supplementary questions.

 

Question submitted by Councillor K. Van Der Plank

 

“It now seems probable that this council will end the financial year 2021/2022 with a surplus of around £370k. So is it now time to revisit the Independent groups budget suggestion of spending £70,000 on the reintroduction of the hugely popular and useful community grants fund which supported many local good and worthy causes?”

 

The Leader responded by commenting that the forecast outturn position for 2021/22 was better than anticipated at the time of setting the 2022/23 budget. This would mean that the opening balance of the Council’s General Fund would be healthier than anticipated, which would help the Council’s challenging financial position.

 

The Leader stressed, however, that other areas within the budget were likely to perform worse than anticipated in the 2022/23 financial year. For example, the inflationary assumptions made when setting the budget with regard to pay inflation (of 2 per cent) and non-pay inflation (of circa 5 per cent) were likely to come under significant pressure during the period. These pressures would be closely monitored but were likely to lead to significant overspends in some areas.

 

Members were also asked to note that the Council still had an underlying gap between spend and income over the medium term. As previously reported in the Budget, the Council’s Medium Term Financial Plan forecasted the authority’s General Fund position to decline significantly from a balance of over £4 million to £1.046 million at the end of 2024/25, a level which was below minimum adequate levels.

 

The Council would therefore need to continue to take steps to reduce expenditure and/or increase income to remain financially secure moving forward.  This financial reality made any decision to spend additional monies very difficult as the Council continued to aim to balance the budget.

 

Question submitted by Councillor S. Douglas

 

“It is disappointing news that WCC have been unsuccessful in their bid for £84m to invest in bus service. I recall that the expected success of this bid was the reasoning behind the refusal to move forward with the Independent budget proposal to fund a business case to investigate the feasibility of BDC running its own local bus services to connect the outlying centres with Bromsgrove.  Will the controlling group now consider writing to the County Council to request that they review the services in Bromsgrove with the potential to provide free bus travel at the weekends?”

 

The Leader responded by advising that she shared Councillor Douglas’s disappointment that Worcestershire County Council had been unsuccessful in their bid for major funding to invest in bus services. Whilst the Council wanted to support all residents with access, connectivity and public transport opportunities throughout the District, it was not possible to commit resources to a feasibility and business case study to consider the Council, as a District authority, running local bus services, particularly given the financial pressures and challenges.

 

The Council’s priorities and commitments were clearly set out in the Council Plan, which was being considered at the Council meeting and which were detailed to:

 

·             Participate in work with Worcestershire County Council and other partners to enable new, better, integrated and more sustainable modes of transport across the District; and

·             Support Active travel.

Finally, Members were asked to note that Bromsgrove District Council already supported Community Transport in Bromsgrove (BURT) at a cost of £28,000 each year, which enabled approximately 350/400 journeys a month to be provided for registered users.

 

Question submitted by Councillor C. Hotham

 

“Please could the cabinet member for finance give a figure for the net annual running cost of the Parkside building to this council after all income and expenditure is accounted for?”

 

The Portfolio Holder for Finance and Governance explained that the net annual running cost budget for Parkside was circa £240,000. The main costs were business rates, utilities and facilities management.  The Council worked hard to try to reduce these costs by letting out space to external organisations and this work would continue.

 

Question submitted by Councillor S. Baxter

 

Councillor C. Hotham asked the following question on behalf of Councillor Baxter:

 

“On 13 April the Government announced the allocation of £2.8m to Bromsgrove District Council through the UK prosperity fund. This is a great opportunity for levelling up across the whole district and is dependent on an investment plan to be submitted by the Council by 1 August. The guidance, announced at the same time stated that ‘Local partners should support lead local authorities for each place to develop the investment plan’.

 

Please can the leader advise on who the Council considers are its partners and which local partners have been involved to date in the development of the investment plan?

 

Parish Councils in Bromsgrove we’re first notified of the fund nearly 2 months later, on 8 June when they were informed that, as stakeholders they ‘are being invited to submit proposals for projects that address a need or exploit an opportunity in the local area'. 

 

The deadline for proposals is 20 June. Does the leader believe that it is realistic for any organisation to conceive, develop and sign off any project within 7 working days.”

 

The Leader responded by highlighting that the Council had engaged with a wide range of partners to develop the investment plan, including Worcestershire County Council, Parish Councils, neighbouring Councils, the Chamber of Commerce, Local Enterprise Partnerships, housing providers, training providers, the Police, NHS, Department of Work and Pensions and representatives of the voluntary and community sector (VCS).  The call for projects was an important part of this engagement as it helped to identify challenges and opportunities that were unlikely to be picked up in conventional data and statistics.

 

The Government had set a very challenging timetable for submission of the Investment Plan.  Whilst the prospectus was published on 13th April 2022, additional guidance had been issued in the intervening period and the Council had had to make a number of adjustments to the authority’s approach before meaningful engagement could be undertaken with partners.  It was important to note that the call for projects was about identifying need and opportunity.  The Council was not required to submit specific projects as part of the Investment Plan.  Consequently, organisations might have an opportunity to access funding for projects after the investment plan had been agreed.  This was particularly likely for activities within the Communities and Place priority of the scheme.

 

Question submitted by Councillor R. Hunter

 

“Right to Buy

 

The Prime Minister’s recent speech in Blackpool reignited fears over the possible expansion of the Right to Buy to housing association tenants. Whilst genuine efforts to support people to own their own home are to be lauded, the unfortunate consequence of Right to Buy is the loss of badly needed social housing that in reality will never be replaced. How many homes has BDHT sold through the Preserved Right to Buy and Right to Acquire since it was established and how will you protect Bromsgrove’s social housing from any further attempts to sell it off?”

 

The Portfolio Holder for Housing and Health and Well Being responded by agreeing that there remained significant demand for social housing in Bromsgrove and anything which removed the availability of much needed social housing and homes, would be of detriment to local communities and future tenants. 

 

At the request of the Portfolio Holder for Housing and Health and Well Being, officers had spoken with colleagues at Bromsgrove District Housing Trust (BDHT) to seek their views, and provide the data, given the question related to the numbers sold by the organisation, as a Registered Provider. Since 2016, there had been 38 properties sold via the Preserved Right to Buy and there had been 5 properties sold via the Right to Acquire (by BDHT), so 43 properties under both categories had been sold in total since 2016.

 

With regard to any possible expansion of the ‘Right to Buy’ scheme to housing association tenants, which if proposals were to be enacted, would impact on BDHT’s stock, their overriding view continued to be that the most pressing concern was the number of social rent properties that were available, and taking any stock out of ‘the system’ would add more pressure to the waiting list and homelessness situation. Generally, Right to Buy encouraged the larger family homes to be sold and these properties were what Bromsgrove needed the most.

 

The Council would continue to work closely in partnership with BDHT primarily, but also with other partners and providers, to ensure that the authority supported and maximised the availability of all types of housing and accommodation to meet the District’s housing needs.

 

Question submitted by Councillor J. King

 

“Artrix assets

 

As we get closer to the reopening of our local arts centre, The Artrix, what assurances can you give that assets such as fittings and technical equipment that were removed when the building became a vaccination centre will be fully reinstalled or replaced?”

 

The Leader responded by commenting that she would write to the Artrix Holding Trust on Councillor King’s behalf on this occasion regarding this matter.  However, Members were asked to note that all future questions about the Artrix needed to be addressed to the Artrix Holding Trust directly.

 

Question submitted by Councillor S. Robinson

 

“Sports facilities

 

Following the loss of the sports hall and the failure to deliver a viable alternative at North Bromsgrove High School, what are you doing to improve the availability of sports facilities in Bromsgrove?”

          

The Portfolio Holder for Finance and Governance responded by explaining that the Council had an agreed position for operating the sports facilities including the sports hall at North Bromsgrove High School outside of school hours.

 

The contractual mechanics were being worked through and although the new operating model was not yet in place, the facility, North Bromsgrove High School’s sports hall, had continued to be hired by BAM for community use.

 

The Council’s Leisure Strategy would be published in the Autumn and would include a build facilities strategy that had received input from Sport England, Governing Bodies, Clubs, Schools and the public.  This would help to ensure the Council was able to support the availability of sports facilities in the District to match the current and future demand in line with recent activity trends.

 

Question submitted by Councillor R. Jenkins

 

In Councillor Jenkins’s absence, Members referred to the question as printed in the agenda.

"For the safety of pedestrians and to protect shop and market stall frontages this Council urgently should make a case to WCC to update the ruling made in 1987 which allows delivery vehicles on the High Street until 10.30am. This was long before the changes were made to Bromsgrove’s chartered market.  This should now be for before 09.00am which is the time by which all market stall vehicles have to be off the High Street so the market can commence.

All of the High Street properties except one, no. 110, have rear functional doors. This change would prevent accidents occurring, any additional damage to property happening, and serve the convenience of pedestrians. This even on non-market days when the High Street can be surprisingly busy at that time. The time off the High Street for delivery vehicles should remain at the existing 4.00am timing.

 

Please could the Leader provide an update on the progress that is being made to address this matter?”

 

In response, the Leader advised that the Bromsgrove Centres Manager was investigating the matter and had liaised with internal Council officers regarding evidence to support any changes to the Traffic Regulation Order (TRO). An initial meeting had been held with Worcestershire County Council to establish the TRO process.  Background work would be undertaken and Members would be updated accordingly.

 

 

Supporting documents: