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 confirmed that there were two Motions on Notice for consideration at this Council meeting.

Private School Business Rates

The following Motion on Notice was submitted by Councillor S. Evans for Council’s consideration:

“Private school business rates

Council calls on Cabinet as part of the budget setting process for 2025/26 to ring fence any additional income that will result from the move by central Government to impose business rates on private schools (and that is retained by Bromsgrove District). The ring fenced pot will be used to fund development activities for young people as part of the Council’s leisure and culture brief and this will include activities aimed at supporting the development of SEND young people.”

The Motion was proposed by Councillor S. Evans and seconded by Councillor J. Clarke.

In proposing the Motion, Councillor Evans highlighted that the Motion had been submitted with the aim to ensure that the Council made the most of the current situation to the benefit of the local community.  It was suggested that there would be approximately £550,000 additional income in business rates within the District as a result of the Government’s rule changes and approximately half of this income would be retained by Bromsgrove District Council.  Furthermore, the suggestion was made that this funding should be ringfenced for investment in initiatives designed to support local young people.  Whilst the Motion did not call on Members to determine the exact initiatives that should receive funding under this process, it was noted that this could include such activities as cycling classes and other youth activities.  The investment would be justified on the basis that young people represented the future of the District.

In seconding the Motion, Councillor Clarke acknowledged that the Council had financial pressures that needed to be addressed over the following years.  However, he suggested that the action proposed in the Motion came within the Council’s brief and would have a positive impact in the community. 

Members subsequently discussed the Motion in detail and in doing so noted that the Council would consider any additional business rates income generated from private schools and the use of this as part of the 2025/26 Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP) to address any pressures that the Council faced and to fund priorities as agreed by Council.

It was noted that ring fencing this funding would run counter to how the Council allocated resources.  The Council budgeted for the use of its resources in the following way.

·             In Tranche 1 of the budget the Council clarified and documented the various pressures (legislative and Council priorities) on the budget as well as allowable additional funding sources. At this point of the process, there was usually a deficit position. 

·             By Tranche 2, the Council would understand the total funding available to the authority via the Local Government Finance Settlement and these additional sources of funding were added to the position agreed at Tranche 1 to give an overall position from which additional savings or priorities could be added.

By ringfencing funds before this point, proper prioritisation of resources could not be achieved across the whole Council.  However, it was noted that the Motion proposed an alternative approach, whereby funding was requested for development activities for young people as part of the Council’s leisure and culture brief. Although using the funding in this way was addressing a Council priority, these services were discretionary in nature and the Council needed to aim to ensure initially that mandatory services could be delivered as part of the prioritisation process, using available resources, before assessing discretionary items of expenditure.

Reference was also made to the responsibilities of the respective Councils in a two-tier authority area.  Members noted that in Worcestershire, the County Council, rather than Bromsgrove District Council, was responsible for provision of services to young people, including SEND (Special Educational Needs and Disabilities) services.  Concerns were raised that allocation of the income from business rates levied to private schools to youth activities provided by the District Council could be regarded as double taxation in this context.  However, in response to this point, Members noted that there were challenges nationally in relation to SEND funding and therefore any additional financial assistance would be welcome.  In addition, questions were raised as to the reasons why the Council had chosen to support a Motion on Notice at a recent Council meeting relating to electric vehicle charging points and to ringfence funding for library services in previous years, which were not necessarily within the Council’s remit.  However, it was noted that the subject of electric charging points was relevant to the Council in relation to use of Council land for the installation and use of this infrastructure.  In respect of the library funding, it was noted that this had been routed through the Local Strategic Partnership (LSP) for use on community centres.

Consideration was also given to the various routes through which Members could suggest items for inclusion in the MTFP.  There was the Finance and Budget Working Group, which held meetings throughout the year and at which suggestions could be brought forward by Members for consideration.  Any recommendations arising from meetings of the group would be referred for further consideration by the Overview and Scrutiny Board and subsequently the Cabinet.  Where the group’s proposals were endorsed at these various stages, then these could be incorporated into the MTFP that would be approved by the Council in February. 

Concerns were raised that there was likely to be a significant gap arising in the Council’s budget of circa £500,000 to cover the requirement to introduce a food waste collection service by spring 2026.  Members commented that the Council would need to adopt a prudent approach to managing the authority’s budget in order to cover the costs of delivering this service.  With this in mind, it was suggested that the Council was not necessarily in a position to allocate funding to support youth initiatives in the District.

The timing of the local government settlement and the potential changes to the calculation of this settlement for 2025/26 were also discussed.  Members commented that it was not unusual for the Government to delay confirming the local government settlement until late December.  However, Members also noted that the formula that would be used to calculate the settlement for 2025/26 was likely to differ from recent years, as the Government had indicated that funding would now be based on levels of deprivation.  There was therefore some uncertainty about the level of funding that would be granted to Bromsgrove District.

The Council’s projected budget position over the course of the MTFP was also discussed.  Whilst there was a small surplus forecast for the first year of the budget, growing deficits were projected for years two and three and therefore the Council had to be careful when making decisions about how to commit expenditure.

In discussing the Motion, a number of Members noted that their opposition to the Motion should not be viewed as indicating that they did not recognise the importance of supporting SEND children.  Indeed, many Members, both those in favour of the Motion and opposed, commented on their commitment to supporting young people with special educational needs. 

Clarification was provided that the Motion was not seeking to propose that the funding be used to provide alternative SEND services or other educational services to young people, which was recognised as being a responsibility of Worcestershire County Council.  Instead, it was noted that Bromsgrove District Council had lead responsibility for Leisure and Cultural Services in the District and could provide additional support to young people in this context.

At the end of a lengthy debate, on being put to the vote the Motion was defeated.

Development of Brownfield Sites

Councillor D. Hopkins presented the following Motion on Notice for Council’s consideration.  In presenting the Motion, Councillor Hopkins proposed alterations to the wording of the Motion which had been included in the agenda for the meeting:

“With the welcomed £700000 given to this council by the Labour Government to enable brownfield sites to be built upon and recognising that each property built on a brownfield site will ease the pressure on our precious greenbelt, we call upon the Cabinet to immediately concentrate and focus on developing brownfield sites with immediate effect.”

The proposed wording of the Motion was subsequently discussed and Members noted that the Cabinet was not in a position to make decisions about developing brownfield sites.  Instead, Members commented that the Cabinet would consider and make recommendations to Council on planning policy matters, including the Local Plan, whilst the Planning Committee’s role was to consider specific planning applications.  Reference was also made to the role of the Strategic Planning Steering Group (SPSG) at the Council which, whilst not a decision-making body, provided all Members with an opportunity to review and suggest amendments to planning policies that would subsequently be reported through Cabinet onto Council.  In this context, following a brief adjournment, the following altered wording was proposed to the Motion:

“With the welcomed £700000 given to this council by the Labour Government to enable brownfield sites to be built upon and recognising that each property built on a brownfield site will ease the pressure on our precious greenbelt, we call upon the Strategic Planning Steering Group to immediately concentrate and focus on considering the development of brownfield sites with immediate effect.”

The Motion was proposed by Councillor D. Hopkins and seconded by Councillor K. Taylor.

In subsequently debating the Motion, concerns were raised about the removal of any reference to an audit of brownfield sites, which had been originally incorporated into the Motion that had been published in the agenda for the meeting.  The suggestion was made that this audit might still be useful, particularly in a context where the Government would be requiring thousands of homes to be built in the District over the following years.  However, it was also noted that the outcomes of the Government’s consultation on the National Planning Policy Framework still remained to be confirmed on the date of the meeting.  In the meantime, the Council would continue to review the potential to develop on brownfield sites, some although not all of which would be suitable for development. 

It was noted that there had already been some work undertaken to review brownfield sites in the District.  As part of this process, Members were advised that five or six sites had been identified.  Although more such sites might be identified in future, the value of an audit in this context was therefore questioned.

On being put to the vote, the Motion was carried.

RESOLVED that

With the welcomed £700000 given to this council by the Labour Government to enable brownfield sites to be built upon and recognising that each property built on a brownfield site will ease the pressure on our precious greenbelt, we call upon the Strategic Planning Steering Group to immediately concentrate and focus on considering the development of brownfield sites with immediate effect.

(During consideration of this item there was a brief adjournment from 19.24 – 19.30.)