Agenda item

Motions on Notice

A period of up to an hour and a half is allocated to consider the motions on notice at this meeting. This may only be extended with the agreement of the Council.

The Motions will be published in a supplementary pack.

Minutes:

The Chairman explained that four Motions on Notice had been received for consideration at this meeting. For the first of these, submitted by Councillor R. Hunter, the wording of the Motion had been amended after the main agenda had been published and this had therefore been reissued in a supplementary pack. As agreed by group leaders prior to the meeting, following changes to Council meetings, an extended time of one and a half hours had been allocated to the consideration of Motions on Notice at the meeting.

The Local Plan

Council considered the following Motion on Notice that was submitted by Councillor R. Hunter:

“This council believes that the local plan preferred options paper should have been published this autumn as previously planned and should be published as soon practicably possible with or without further infrastructure assessment to avoid any further unnecessary delays to the completion of our next local plan.”

The Motion was proposed by Councillor Hunter and seconded by Councillor S. Robinson.

In proposing the Motion, Councillor Hunter commented that the Motion focused on the decision that had been taken to delay publication of the preferred options paper for the Council, which would have identified potential sites for development. It was suggested that this delay would cause anxiety for many residents, due to uncertainty about whether particular land might be identified as suitable for development. In addition, Members were asked to note that the deferral would delay the provision of affordable housing in the District. Members were asked to note that the original wording of the Motion had been amended at the suggestion of Officers.

Reference was made to the Strategic Transport Assessment for the District, which had been postponed, however, Councillor Hunter suggested that the delay of this document did not justify deferring the preferred options paper. Other Councils in Worcestershire were proceeding with their work on their Local Plans and Councillor Hunter suggested that it would be more transparent and appropriate to proceed at a similar pace in Bromsgrove.

In seconding the Motion, Councillor Robinson stated that, whilst Members might have different views about the reasons for the deferral, it had been unfortunate that there had been limited notice provided to Councillors of the delay. Members had been working to a particular deadline and Councillor Robinson suggested that any concerns about meeting this deadline should have been raised at an earlier stage in the process with Members. Should the preferred options plan be deferred, it was suggested that clarification would need to be provided as soon as possible about the new deadline.

The Portfolio Holder for Planning and Regulatory Services responded to the Motion by explaining that, as advised and explained at a meeting of the Strategic Planning Steering Group, the plan had been delayed for further infrastructure work to be undertaken. The Portfolio Holder for Planning and Regulatory Services expressed the view that providing residents and businesses with more certainty over the infrastructure required to support the plan was key, which was why a decision had been taken to delay the plan. A new timetable would be published in due course which would set out when the Council would consult on its new plan. The future of the District and residents needed to be considered and the Portfolio Holder for Planning and Regulatory Services expressed the view that it would be reckless to continue without this infrastructure work in place.

During consideration of this Motion, Councillor S. Colella proposed an amendment to the wording. The amended wording was as follows:

“This council believes that the local plan preferred options paper should have been published this autumn as previously planned and should be published as soon practicably possible with a further infrastructure assessment to avoid any further unnecessary delays to the completion of our next local plan.”

In proposing this amendment, Councillor Colella expressed concerns about the support that had been received from Worcestershire County Council in relation to the infrastructure required for large developments at Whitford Road and Perryfields as well as in relation to Active Travel. Councillor Colella suggested that the Council required reassurance that Worcestershire County Council would undertake infrastructure assessments in relation to the Bromsgrove Local Plan and would offer support to Bromsgrove District Council where needed. In this context, Councillor Colella suggested that an infrastructure assessment was needed for the local plan preferred options paper.

Consideration was given to the amendment proposed by Councillor Colella and the Monitoring Officer was called upon to provide advice. In responding to the proposed amendment, the Monitoring Officer highlighted that the amendment, and the rationale provided for the amendment, could be regarded as criticisms of the competence of Worcestershire County Council. This would be unprofessional wording for a Motion. Therefore, for this reason, the amendment was rejected.

The infrastructure assessments needed, particularly in relation to larger housing developments, were subsequently debated. Members noted that the strategic transport assessment for Bromsgrove District had been discussed at a number of Council meetings with reference also having been made in the past to the potential to introduce a Western Bypass and the need for a feasibility study in respect of this. Concerns were raised that the delays in relation to the strategic transport assessment would mean that work would have already commenced on housing development in locations where a Western Bypass could have been situated. Reference was also made to the availability of bus services and support for walking and cycling in the county and Members questioned whether additional support in relation to this would be made available to the District moving forward.

Clarification was provided that the decision had been taken to defer the local preferred options to allow for a range of infrastructure issues, not just the strategic planning assessment, to be investigated further. This included giving consideration to the provision of schools in larger housing developments as well as to the outcomes of the ongoing review of Active Travel in the county. The deferral would provide extra time for the Council to consider data and other evidence that would help to inform the content of the plan moving forward.

The work that had already been undertaken by the Council’s Strategic Planning team was subsequently debated. Members noted that Officers had already assessed a number of sites and questions were raised about the extent to which Officers were likely to change their assessments as a result of further information being provided about the infrastructure.

The need for transparency in the strategic planning process was also discussed. Members commented on the value of providing clarification as soon as possible on the numbers of houses that would be built in each ward during the period of the next Local Plan. This information would enable Members to assess the potential impact on their communities. However, it was also noted that, rather than raising expectations unnecessarily based on incomplete information, the deferral of the preferred options plan would ensure that the Council had time to gather more detail and to ensure that future proposals had an evidence basis.

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

Members voting FOR the Motion:

Councillors S. Douglas, C. Hotham, R. Hunter, J. King, S. Robinson, H. Rone-Clarke and K. Van Der Plank (7).

Members voting AGAINST the Motion:

Councillors A. Beaumont, R. Deeming, H. Jones, A. Kriss, R. Laight, K. May, M. Sherrey, P. Thomas, M. Thompson, J. Till, S. Webb and P. Whittaker (12).

Members ABSTAINING in the vote on the Motion:

Councillor S. Colella (1).

The vote on the Motion was therefore lost.

The Ryland Centre

Council considered the following Motion on Notice that was submitted by Councillor S. Robinson:

“Cabinet is asked to work with Worcestershire County Council, which owns the Ryland Centre, to ensure that, wherever possible, services continue at the centre.”

The Motion was proposed by Councillor Robinson and seconded by Councillor Hunter.

In proposing the Motion, Councillor Robinson commented that the Ryland Centre was a unique and valued local leisure centre. Residents could access a sports hall in the Ryland Centre, which was a facility that was not available at other leisure centres in the town. There were good sports facilities available for residents to access in the Ryland Centre and it needed support to ensure that this could continue to be offered to Bromsgrove residents moving forward.

In seconding the Motion, Councillor Hunter noted that the Ryland Centre provided a great facility for the use of local residents.

During consideration of this Motion, Councillor M. Thompson proposed an amendment to the wording of the Motion. This amended wording was as follows:

“Cabinet is asked to work with Worcestershire County Council, which owns the Ryland Centre, to ensure that, wherever possible, with no financial burden to Bromsgrove District Council, services continue at the centre.”

The amendment was proposed by Councillor Thompson and seconded by Councillor K. May.

In proposing the amendment, Councillor Thompson acknowledged that the Ryland Centre was a valued leisure facility. However, Members were asked to note that the Ryland Centre was owned by Worcestershire County Council, not Bromsgrove District Council. At a challenging time for local government finances, there was a need to ensure that Council budgets were utilised appropriately. In this context, any support that the Council provided to the Ryland Centre needed to be supplied without having budget implications for the authority.

In seconding the amendment, Councillor May commented that Members needed to be mindful of the difficult financial situation of the Council. Members were also asked to note that the Council had submitted a bid in the 2010s to Worcestershire County Council to run the Ryland Centre and this had been rejected in favour of a different supplier.

In considering the amendment, Members commented that the Motion, as originally worded, did provide flexibility over the type of support that Bromsgrove District Council could provide in relation to the Ryland Centre. It was further noted that reference to “wherever possible” could be interpreted as clarifying that Bromsgrove District Council could only provide so much support within existing resources. However, concerns were also raised about the financial implications of the Council’s existing responsibilities and Members commented on the need for the authority to manage public finances prudently. Therefore, it was suggested that the Council needed to be careful and to consider the risks to the authority when offering support to the Ryland Centre.

On being put to the vote, the Motion was carried in the amended form.

RESOLVED that

Cabinet is asked to work with Worcestershire County Council, which owns the Ryland Centre, to ensure that, wherever possible, with no financial burden to Bromsgrove District Council, services continue at the centre.

Street Theatre

Council considered the following Motion on Notice that was submitted by Councillor S. Colella:

“That BDC reinstates the Street Theatres from Summer 23 and monies that would have been spent on this year’s street Theatres are made available to the communities that have this year missed out so that ward councillors can use this money in their wards for community events.”

The Motion was proposed by Councillor Colella and seconded by Councillor C. Hotham.

In proposing the Motion, Councillor Colella explained that there had been street theatre in Bromsgrove District, organised by the Council, for at least ten years. The street theatre had become popular with residents and the quality of events had improved over time. Whilst the street theatre had been cancelled in 2020, due to the Covid-19 pandemic, events had returned in 2021. However, Councillor Colella expressed concerns that street theatre had not taken place in 2022 and that he had learned about this from the Parish Clerk at Hagley Parish Council rather than from Council Officers. After raising questions about this, Councillor Colella had been advised that the budget for street theatre had been replaced with support from the Welcome Back Fund. Councillor Colella questioned when the decision had been taken to make changes to the budget and whether Members had been involved in making this decision. In addition, Councillor Colella raised concerns that there might be expectations that Parish Councils should take a lead on organising and funding street theatre activities, using funds from their precepts, despite the different roles of Parish and District Councils. Concerns were also raised that some arts and cultural activities had taken place in the Birdbox in Bromsgrove town centre and Councillor Colella suggested that this approach appeared to demonstrate a focus on the town at the expense of communities in outlying areas. Councillor Colella concluded by highlighting the content of the Centres Strategy and questioning whether the focus of this strategy had been reduced without prior consultation.

In seconding the Motion, Councillor Hotham acknowledged that the Council was in a challenging financial position and only had finite resources. However, Members were asked to note that there would be funding in the budget for arts events and activities in 2023/24 and it was important to ensure that decisions about how this funding was used were made following consultation. It was also important to ensure that Members were kept informed about plans for the District in terms of use of this funding.

Members subsequently discussed the Motion in detail and in so doing noted that the Welcome Back Fund had consisted of two tranches of funding. However, Council was asked to note that this funding had not been cut. It was noted that the allocation of funding to services was determined by Members but how this funding was used was delegated to officers to decide following consultation with the Leader.

The Portfolio Holder for Leisure, Culture and Climate Change explained that in 2022 it had been agreed that the Council should use the budget for street theatres to deliver three key and unique events:

1) The Queen’s Platinum Jubilee commemorating 70 years on the throne. This event involved the lighting of a beacon as part of the thousands lit across the UK to mark the start of the celebrations.

2) The Green Funday, an event to support the messaging and challenges around the climate emergency.

3) The Queen’s Baton Relay event in Sanders Park to welcome the Queen’s Baton as it moved across the Midlands before reaching its destination in Birmingham for the Commonwealth Games.

These events were programmed and delivered following consultation with the relevant lead Portfolio Holder and officers had had delegated authority to act in this way.

Members were asked to note that a recommendation within the emerging Leisure and Culture Strategy for Bromsgrove District was to develop programmes of support to increase skills and capacity amongst local organisations and communities and to ensure the successful delivery of new programmes of events and activities. This would allow local groups and communities to have more say and control of what happened where they lived. The Council would continue to assess the most appropriate ways to deliver events and activities moving forward and Members were asked to note that, just because a particular event had taken place in the past, this would not guarantee that it would continue to take place in the future if there was evidence to suggest that a different approach was needed to meet the needs of the local community.

Reference was made by Members to the need for the Council to prioritise use of funding in any given year and it was noted that in 2022 events related to Queen Elizabeth II’s Platinum Jubilee, the Commonwealth Games and to tackling climate change had all been prioritised. However, it was also commented that there needed to be greater transparency in future in respect of determining which events and activities should be prioritised.

On being put to the vote the Motion was lost.

Cost of Living

Council considered the following Motion on Notice that was submitted by Councillor H. Rone-Clarke:

“Council recognises that the current cost of living crisis is both an emergency and a matter of paramount concern for local residents.

Therefore, council resolves to:

1. Lobby the new Prime Minister for concrete action to be taken in order to support the public through this upcoming crisis

2. To ask the Overview and Scrutiny Board to consider use of the Parkside complex as a day centre during the Autumn/Winter period to support residents who cannot afford to heat their homes, providing a warm space to sit and even socialise.”

The Motion was proposed by Councillor Rone-Clarke and seconded by Councillor May.

In proposing the Motion, Councillor Rone-Clarke explained that, following a conversation with the Leader, the wording of the Motion had been amended slightly from the version published in the agenda to ask the Overview and Scrutiny Board to investigate the potential to use the Parkside building to provide warmth and support to residents who could not afford to heat their homes.

In seconding the Motion, Councillor May commented that she was keen to lobby the Government over the provision of certainty in relation to the Revenue Support Grant for the Council. In addition, the Council would aim to liaise with Worcestershire County Council, which managed the Library in Parkside, over the potential for that facility to provide a safe and warm space for local residents. Reference was made to leaflets that had recently been circulated for Members’ consideration on the cost of living and Members were advised that the Print Unit could produce copies of this leaflet on request for Members to distribute.

During consideration of this item, Members noted that the agenda for the following meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Board had already been published and the cost of living was not an item on the agenda. However, there was a review that had been undertaken by the Fuel Poverty Task Group, which was close to completion, which could potentially be asked to investigate this matter further and to report back to the Overview and Scrutiny Board in due course. As the Fuel Poverty Task Group had been due to report to the meeting of the Board in October, Members suggested that this item should be postponed at the Board meeting and that the outcomes of the group’s discussions could be reported at a following meeting of the Board, which could include holding an extra meeting of the Board in November.

On being put to the vote the Motion was agreed.

RESOLVED that Council recognises that the current cost of living crisis is both an emergency and a matter of paramount concern for local residents.

Therefore, council resolves to:

1) Lobby the new Prime Minister for concrete action to be taken in order to support the public through this upcoming crisis.

2) Ask the Overview and Scrutiny Board to consider use of the Parkside complex as a day centre during the Autumn/Winter period to support residents who cannot afford to heat their homes, providing a warm space to sit and even socialise.

Supporting documents: