Agenda item

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.

The Chairman explained that there had been two Motions on Notice received for this meeting.

Worcestershire Unitary Authority

Council considered the following Motion on Notice that was submitted by Councillor C. Hotham

“This Council asks Officers to fully appraise and report back on the implications for Bromsgrove residents of the introduction of either a whole Worcestershire unitary authority or a smaller North Worcestershire unitary authority.”

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

In proposing the Motion, Councillor Hotham highlighted the financial deficit that had been discussed earlier in the meeting at the Council. He also stated that this was the picture across many Councils across the County. It was noted that these financial difficulties would almost certainly result in cuts to services and impact residents.

Research had been carried out by PricewaterhouseCoopers in 2020 outlining the savings that could potentially be made over five years if a Single or Dual Unitary Authority were to be created. In respect of a Single County Unitary, it was reported that this could potentially generate savings of £126m for a mid-sized county area over five years. For a Dual Unitary Authority, it was reported that the potential savings could be £51m for a mid-sized County area.

Council was advised that Central Government seemed to be pushing for a Unitary approach across the country and there was a danger that if something was not done to start this process, Bromsgrove District Council could be left behind.

During consideration of this Motion, Members raised the positive impacts of having a District Council in a two-tier authority area rather than a unitary authority. It was stated that at District Council level, Members knew communities and understood its needs. It was highlighted that as there were Shared Services operating across both Bromsgrove and Redditch Councils, this would already have a positive impact on savings.

The Portfolio Holder for Finance and Governance stated that there needed to be a unanimous agreement across all local authorities for this Motion to proceed, however this was not the case currently.  Research and appraisal would cost time and money and was something Bromsgrove District Council would certainly not consider solely funding.  

It was outlined that as there were only three months until District Council elections took place, this would be a decision for the new administration. 

On being put to the vote the Motion was lost.

Bromsgrove Town Relief Road

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

“We believe a detailed study into alternative options for a Bromsgrove Town relief road is now urgently required in order that chronic traffic congestion can be addressed. It is requested that officers prepare a brief for such a study together with an estimate of the cost and present the brief to the Cabinet for their consideration as soon as possible.”

The Motion was proposed by Councillor Hunter.

In proposing the Motion Councillor Hunter stated that the traffic congestion around Bromsgrove town centre was a critical issue. Local businesses and air quality were being impacted significantly as a result of this and it was noted that this was detrimental to the growth of Bromsgrove in the future.

During consideration of this Motion, Members were advised that WCC was undertaking an extensive piece of work around traffic modelling which would take into account current traffic levels and form part of a Strategic Transport Assessment for the whole of Worcestershire.  This included work in relation to the future infrastructure requirements for Bromsgrove District. 

It was important for Members to understand that any decisions on future infrastructure needed to consider a wide range of factors, including the role that sustainable modes of transport such as walking, cycling and passenger transport, as well as emerging new technology could play, in reducing the need to travel. Similarly, the impact on the environment of all these interventions needed to be taken into account. A stand-alone assessment of a new route for a road would have limited value without being able to factor in all the other relevant elements fully.  It was noted that there needed to be more focus on the reduction in use of cars. This would encourage residents to take alternative modes of transport and reduce the numbers of cars on the roads, thereby improving congestion.

Members once again raised their concerns in respect of the congestion in and around Bromsgrove town centre and highlighted that the large developments at Perryfields and Whitford Road, that had been approved by the Planning Inspectorate, would only compound the issues that were already problematic.  In addition, it was raised that there had been discussions regarding a Strategic Transport Assessment which was due to be carried out in 2021. This had still not been received for Council to consider. As a result of this, it was felt that the plans for the relief road were still no further forward than they were prior to the approval by the Planning Inspectorate of those two developments.

It was with this in mind that Councillor H. D. N. Rone-Clarke proposed the following amendment to the Motion.

‘We believe a detailed study into alternative options for a Bromsgrove Town relief road is now urgently required, as well as a timeline for the release of the new Strategic Transport Assessment (promised by Sep 2022) and the delayed green belt review for Council’s consideration, in order that chronic traffic congestion can be addressed. It is requested that Officers prepare a brief for such a study together with an estimate of the cost and present the brief to the Cabinet for their consideration as soon as possible.’

Councillor Hunter indicated, as the proposer of the original Motion, that he was happy to accept this amendment. Councillor H. D. N. Rone-Clarke subsequently seconded the amended Motion.

On being put to the vote the Motion was lost.