Agendas, Meetings and Minutes - Agenda and minutes

Agenda and minutes

Venue: County Hall, Worcester

Contact: Simon Lewis  Committee Officer

Media

Items
No. Item

Available papers

The members had before them:

 

A.    The Agenda papers (previously circulated);

 

B.    7 questions submitted to the Head of Legal and Democratic Services (previously circulated);

 

C.   The Minutes of the meetings held on 14 September 2017 and 19 October 2017 (previously circulated).

Additional documents:

1937.

Apologies and Declaration of Interests (Agenda item 1)

To receive apologies and invite any councillor to declare any interest in any of the items on the agenda.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Apologies were received from Mr A Fry, Mr S M Mackay, Mr J A D O'Donnell, Prof J W Raine, and Mr T A L Wells.

 

Mr P Grove declared an interest in Agenda item 5 – Fire and Rescue Authority – as a Police and Crime Commissioner Ambassador.

 

Mrs T L Onslow declared an interest in Agenda item 5 – Fire and Rescue Authority – as the Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner.

 

Dr C Hotham declared an DPI in Agenda item 7 – Notice of Motion 1 – as his wife had a private GP practice – and would not participate in that item.

1938.

Public Participation (Agenda item 2)

To allow a member of the public to present a petition, or ask a question relating to the functions of the Council, or to make a comment on any matter on the agenda.

 

Members of the public wishing to take part should notify the Head of Legal and Democratic Services in writing or by e-mail indicating both the nature and content of their proposed participation no later than 9.00am on the working day before the meeting (in this case Wednesday, 8 November 2017). Further details are available on the Council’s website. Enquiries can also be made through the telephone number/e-mail address listed below.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

None.

1939.

Minutes (Agenda item 3)

To approve as a correct record and authorise the signing the Minutes of the meetings held on 29 September and 19 October 2017 (previously circulated electronically).

Additional documents:

Minutes:

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meetings held on 14 September 2017 and 19 October 2017 be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

1940.

Chairman's Announcements (Agenda item 4)

To receive any announcements to be made by the Chairman.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Chairman referred Members to the printed announcements.

1941.

Fire and Rescue Authority (Agenda item 5) pdf icon PDF 196 KB

To consider the annual report of the Hereford and Worcester Fire and Rescue Authority (Red pages) to be presented by Mr P A Tuthill, Vice-Chairman and to receive any answers to any questions asked about this report. It is planned that the Chief Fire Officer will attend this meeting.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Chairman welcomed Mr Nathan Travis, the Chief Fire Officer, to the meeting.  The Vice-Chairman of the Hereford and Worcester Fire and Rescue Authority, Mr P A Tuthill, presented his report to the Council and he and Mr Travis answered questions asked by members of the Council.

1942.

Reports of Cabinet - Matters which require a decision by Council - Additions to the Capital Programme - Phase 3 of the development of in-house Supported Living Accommodation and residential facilities within Children's Services (Agenda item 6 (a)) pdf icon PDF 147 KB

To consider the reports of the Cabinet and to receive answers to any questions asked on those reports as follows:

 

a)    Report of Cabinet – Matters which require a decision by Council (Yellow pages); and

b)    Report of Cabinet – Summary of decisions taken (White pages).

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Council considered additions to the Capital Programme in respect of Phase 3 of the development of in-house Supported Living Accommodation and residential facilities within Children's Services. The details were set out in the report.

 

In the ensuing debate, the following principal points were raised:

 

·         The Leader introduced the report. He commented that Phase 3 of the development of in-house Post-16 Supported Living Accommodation and residential facilities would be funded by revenue savings. The payback period would be short and the project would benefit from capital appreciation from the acquisition of the buildings   

·         The Cabinet Member for Children and Families commented that the provision of in-house facilities would enable services to be close to educational, vocational and social needs of service users and make it easier for family visits. However out-of-county and remote facilities would still be necessary for children with particularly complex needs.

 

RESOLVED that the addition of £4.1 million to the Capital Programme be approved for Phase 3 of the development of in-house Post-16 Supported Living Accommodation and residential facilities within Children's Services to be funded by revenue savings from the projects.

1943.

Reports of Cabinet - Matters which require a decision by Council - Local Transport Plan 4 (Agenda item 6 (a))

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Council considered Local Transport Plan 4. The details were set out in the report.

 

In the ensuing debate, the following principal points were raised:

 

·         The Cabinet Member for Economy and Infrastructure introduced the report. He commented that LTP4 was a statutory document which provided the strategic overview of the Council's vision for transport infrastructure in the county up to 2031. The outcome of the extensive consultation exercise had been included in the report. He apologised for the late availability of the Health Impact Assessment

·         It was important that LTP4 was embedded in other strategic documents including the Corporate Plan and the Strategic Economic Plan. LTP3 had successfully provided the basis for the development of a number of important transport schemes. Significant revisions to LTP4 had been made following consultation with partners and the views of Scrutiny had been noted. A thriving local economy was dependent on efficient transport infrastructure and it was hoped that LTP4 would be successful in drawing down vital resources from the Government

·         The Chairman of OSPB thanked the Cabinet Member for Economy and Infrastructure, officers, scrutiny members and district and parish councils for their contribution to the scrutiny process. The Board had agreed comments on the draft which included suggested changes be made to LTP4 and Council should consider that request. An amendment was being proposed purely as a procedural means of including the recommendations of the Board in the Plan.

 

An amendment was moved by Mr C J Bloore and seconded by Mrs F M Oborski that LTP 4 be amended to include the comments from the Board:

 

·         The County Council lobbies District Councils where appropriate and if necessary for the establishment of low emission zones, and

 

·         Due to the impact on local communities when the M5 and/or M42 are closed, the provision of suitable bypass infrastructure should be included in the Plan.

 

The Head of Legal and Democratic Services advised that the proposed amendment represented a change to the draft plan and therefore Council, if it so wished, could adopt it as an amendment to the Plan.

 

Those in favour of the amendment made the following comments:

 

·         When closures occurred on the M5 and M42, motorists should be notified of alternative routes. In the long term it was necessary to provide suitable bypass infrastructure to ease congestion in Bromsgrove

·         District councils had an important role in the reduction of air pollution. This Council should consider the introduction of low emission zones for certain areas of the county

·         Congestion in certain parts of Worcester was particularly heavy and this had impacted upon the level of air pollution. The local bus company had blatantly responded to the congestion difficulties by producing a contra-flow bus service along Canterbury Road, Worcester. The Council needed to put forward a stronger response to congestion issues

·         The Cabinet Member for Economy and Infrastructure had stated that 40,000 people a year were dying from the impact of air pollution and yet LTP4 said very little about how low emission zones would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 1943.

1944.

Reports of Cabinet - Matters which require a decision by Council - Pershore Infrastructure Improvements (Agenda item 6 (a))

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Council considered Pershore Infrastructure Improvements. The details were set out in the report.

 

In the ensuing debate, the following principal points were raised:

 

·         The Cabinet Member for Economy and Infrastructure introduced the report and commented that there were three elements to the scheme: the Northern Link Road, Pinvin Junction, and Station Road/Wyre Road Junction. The scheme would cost £11.6m, some of which had already been received from the LEP however the Council would be required to raise a further £5.6m. He acknowledged there was a dispute locally about the nature of the junction at Station Road/Wyre Road and a solution was being sought

·         The Leader commented that this project was an example of the County Council putting in the necessary transport infrastructure to support economic and housing growth. He paid tribute to the contribution of the local councillor in bringing the project to fruition

·         The local councillor welcomed the proposal which provided value for money and would solve the congestion issues at Pinvin Crossroads.

 

RESOLVED that the addition of £11.6 million to the Capital Programme be agreed with £6 million being provisionally secured through Worcestershire Local Enterprise Partnership and local district council and developer contribution for the purpose of completing the Pershore Infrastructure Improvement scheme.

1945.

Reports of Cabinet - Matters which require a decision by Council - New Capital Investment - A4440 Worcester Southern Link Road Phase 4 Carrington Bridge to Powick (Agenda item 6 (a))

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Council considered new capital investment for A4440 Worcester Southern Link Road Phase 4 Carrington Bridge to Powick. The details were set out in the report.

 

In the ensuing debate, the following principal points were raised:

 

·         The Leader introduced the report. He commented that this was one of the largest transport infrastructure investments in the county for many decades. It would result in the dualling of the carriageway from Junction 7 of the M5 to Powick roundabout. It would relieve congestion in and around Worcester. It showed the benefits of having a clear economic strategy linked to the Development Plan in attracting funding to the county

·         The scheme would have clear benefits for residents living to the west of Worcester

·         A local member commented that the scheme would not solve existing or projected traffic congestion issues. The Council needed to commit to the completion of the Worcester ring road to the north of the city

·         In order to ease disruption caused by the construction works, improve traffic flows and ease safety concerns in the area, the Bluebell Farm Scheme at Upton-upon-Severn should receive urgent attention as part of LTP4

·         The scheme would help journey times from Malvern to the motorway and to the Worcestershire Royal Hospital

·         The Council needed to look at alternative approaches other than road building to solve congestion issues

·         The Leader commented that an evidence based application had been submitted to the DfT with traffic modelling that indicated that the scheme would meet housing and employment growth, speed up traffic and increase capacity. The traffic scheme in Worcester City centre was being upgraded to improve traffic flow and ease congestion. The Council was taking a balanced approach to improving transport in the county utilising all modes of transport. 

 

RESOLVED that the addition of £62 million to the Capital Programme be approved for A4440 Worcester Southern Link Phase 4 Carrington Bridge to Powick and that the cash limits are updated accordingly.

1946.

Reports of Cabinet - Matters which require a decision by Council - 100% Business Rates Retention - Pilot (Agenda item 6 (a))

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Council considered the 100% Business Rates Retention - Pilot. The details were set out in the report.

 

In the ensuing debate, the following principal points were raised:

 

·         The Leader introduced the report. He commented that if the bid to the Government was successful it would enable the county to retain business rates of £5.7m of which £3.5m would be a gain for the County Council. This bid was supported by district councils and was a major step towards self-sufficiency for the Council

·         £3.5m was nowhere near enough to make the Council self-sufficient and it was misleading to suggest so. The Council should make representations to the Government to increase the Revenue Support Grant for the Council 

·         Towards the end of the consultation period, the County Council had put forward an alternative proposal to district councils which suggested that  the County Council should receive a 59% share of business rates. How had this approach been decided and by whom? The Leader commented that the Council had had a limited timeframe to submit a bid to the Government and therefore discussions with district colleagues had had to be held late in the process. The proposed share ratio would be on a one year basis for the pilot scheme and did not reflect future settlements. All parties had signed up to the final submission. This was a step forward towards self-sufficiency but it did not represent the amount the Council would receive when it became 100% self-funded

·         In response to a query, the Leader explained that the additional £5.7m referred to the growth in business rates and not the base line total of £60m

 

RESOLVED that the submission to participate in the pilot for 100% Business Rates Retention be endorsed.

1947.

Reports of Cabinet - Summary of decisions taken (Agenda item 6 (b))

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Leader of the Council reported the following topics and questions were answered on them:

 

·         Children's Social Care Update

·         Resources Report

·         Worcestershire Data Sharing Charter

·         Worcestershire Safeguarding Children Board (WSCB) Annual Report 2016/17

·         Joint Municipal Waste Management Strategy Update (JMWMS)

·         Worcestershire Rail Investment Strategy

·         Kidderminster Railway Station

·         Infrastructure Engineering Term Contract

·         Updated Policy on Delayed and Accelerated Transfer - Placement of Pupils out of their Chronological Age Group including Summer Born Children starting school

·         Adoption Regionalisation

·         Proposed Engagement on Options for Future Delivery - Connect Short-Term Service and Council-Provided Day Services for Adults with a Learning Disability.

 

In response to queries regarding the Worcestershire Rail Investment Strategy, the Cabinet Member for Economy and Infrastructure explained that the train service from Kidderminster to London was in addition to the two trains per hour from Worcester. In order to increase the frequency and speed of trains from London to Worcester, the Henwick turn-back would be created. He acknowledged that the proposals would have an impact on service provision to the west of Worcester.

1948.

Notices of Motion - Notice of Motion 1 - Privatised health care provision (Agenda item 7) pdf icon PDF 137 KB

To receive the report of the Head of Legal and Democratic Services on any Notices of Motion received by him (Lilac pages). 

Councillors are asked to note that any Notices of Motion must be received by the Head of Legal and Democratic Services no later than noon on Thursday, 2 November 2017.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Council had before it a Notice of Motion as set out in the agenda papers standing in the names of Ms P Agar, Mr P M McDonald, Mr R M Udall, Mr P Denham, Mr C J Bloore and Ms C M Stalker.

 

The motion was moved by Ms P Agar and seconded by Mr P M McDonald.

 

The Council agreed to deal with the motion on the day.

 

Those in favour of the motion made the following comments:

 

·         The Chief Executive of the NHS would wish to see NHS sustainability and transformation plans to take the shape of Accountable Care Organisations. ACOs were a mechanism for limiting the care that the NHS offered. Patients who were deemed poor value for money would be denied care. Providers would be allowed to keep the profits and carry the risks of any overspending. ACOs would effectively privatise the NHS. Demand management techniques would drive patients into the private sector. There was no evidence that ACOs benefit the NHS or patients. Privatisation was not the way forward for the NHS  

·         The introduction of an American-style ACO approach would see millions of pounds wasted on the development an internal market. STPs would lead to the withdrawal and restriction of treatments particularly of over the counter products. STPs were forcing cuts under the guise of efficiency savings. Doctors would be dictated as to what care they would be allowed to provide

·         Under the Capped Expenditure Process, the Government was informing NHS Trusts that if they failed to meet targets then funds would be withdrawn at a time when most Trusts were struggling. It was right to be concerned about the potential privatisation of the NHS especially in circumstances where private sector companies had withdrawn and the NHS did not have the capacity to pick the service up.

 

Those against the motion made the following comments:

 

·         The Cabinet Member for Adult Services indicated that the STPs were already in place in Herefordshire and Worcestershire. ACOs aimed to build on the efforts to integrate health systems. NHS England expected STPs to emerge into ACOs and this would take a number of years. An ACO would provide a variety of contracts for delivery of the service, free at the point of delivery. The NHS had always commissioned services from outside the state sector to balance the financial constraints with the best outcomes. The Council was committed to providing the best ways of integrating care by working in partnership across the whole system. Structural change would not be implemented for the sake of it without a suitable business case. ACOs did not necessarily mean privatisation  

·         Most CCGs were effectively operating as small businesses and needed to operate in an effective and efficient manner

·         There was no evidence that the STP for Worcestershire would lead to privatisation therefore the Notice of Motion was irrelevant

 

On being put to the vote, the motion was lost.

1949.

Notices of Motion - Notice of Motion 2 - Mercury School Finance System (Agenda item 7)

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Council had before it a Notice of Motion as set out in the agenda papers standing in the names of Mr R C Lunn, Mr R M Udall, Mr P M McDonald, Mr P Denham, Mr C J Bloore and Ms C M Stalker.

 

The motion was moved by Mr R C Lunn and seconded by Mr P M McDonald who both spoke in favour of it.

 

The Council agreed to deal with the motion on the day.

 

A number of members also spoke in favour of the motion and the general tenor of the debate was in favour.

 

Council RESOLVED: "Council calls upon the CMR to consider providing a report to a future Cabinet, providing a full explanation behind the ongoing issues with the Mercury School Finance System, which will include what is being done to resolve the issues of concern and who is responsible for the process.  Council seeks information regarding the cost incurred by the Council in trying to rectify the ongoing problems and challenges."

1950.

Notices of Motion - Notice of Motion 3 - Diagnosis of Children with autism (Agenda item 7)

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Council had before it a Notice of Motion as set out in the agenda papers standing in the names of Mr R M Udall, Mr R C Lunn, Mr P M McDonald, Mr P Denham, and Ms C M Stalker.

 

The motion was moved by Mr R M Udall and seconded by Mr P Denham who both spoke in favour of it.

 

The Council agreed to deal with the motion on the day.

 

The following amendment was moved by Mr M J Hart and seconded by Mr J H Smith:

 

"Council notes the length of time it can take in Worcestershire from point of referral to diagnosis for a child to be diagnosed with autism. Council notes the Umbrella Pathway is experiencing high demand. Council notes that a group of education and health commissioners and providers are currently looking at the reasons for the huge increase in referrals and how the pathway can be made as efficient and timely as possible for children.  The review is scheduled to conclude by the end of January 2018.

 

Council therefore requests OSPB to consider looking at the outcome of the review and liaising with the Children and Families Panel for any input they may wish to have and to make any recommendations accordingly."

 

The mover and seconder accepted the amendment which became the substantive motion as altered.

 

A number of members also spoke in favour of the motion and the general tenor of the debate was in favour.

 

On being put to the meeting the substantive motion as altered was agreed.

1951.

Notices of Motion - Notice of Motion 4 - Transport Hierachy (Agenda item 7)

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Council had before it a Notice of Motion as set out in the agenda papers standing in the names of Mrs E B Tucker, Prof J W Raine, Mr M E Jenkins and Mrs F M Oborski.

 

The motion was moved by Mr M E Jenkins and seconded by Mrs E B Tucker who both spoke in favour of it.

 

The Chairman also invited Group Leaders or their nominees to contribute before the Motion stood referred to Cabinet.

 

As the Motion was in relation to the exercise of an executive function it then stood referred to the Cabinet for a decision.

1952.

Annual State of the County report of the Leader of the Council (Agenda item 8) pdf icon PDF 116 KB

To receive this report and to receive answers to any questions on it (Blue pages).

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Leader of the Council presented her report which concerned a number of overarching issues:

 

·         Open for Business

·         Children and Families

·         Environment

·         Health and Wellbeing

·         Addressing or financial challenge

·         An Enabling Council

·         The way we work

·         Pension Fund

 

The Leader answered questions about his report which included:

 

·         The number of jobs created in the county that were full-time equivalent

·         Was he satisfied that the generation of new homes and business growth was providing the expected financial return for the county?

·         The plans to secure additional funds post Brexit

·         The purpose and regularity of meetings of the North Cotswold Line Task Force Board

·         Improvement of the working relationship between the Council and developers

·         The Leader and the Cabinet Member for Economy and Infrastructure to liaise with the local councillor regarding the involvement of Natural England's Natural Flood Mechanism Team in flooding issues associated with a number of brooks in the Broadway division

·         An assurance be provided that the flood scheme at Upton-upon-Severn would not be further delayed

·         Would the timescale for the introduction of the Alternative Delivery Model for Children's Services allow enough time for an adequate consultation period?

·         Whether there would be a review of the Council's approach to public transport

·         Did the faster and more proportionate response from social care result from greater use of the telephone rather that staff visits under the Three Conversations Model?

 

The Chairman thanked the Leader for his report.

1953.

Question Time (Agenda item 9) pdf icon PDF 122 KB

To receive answers to any questions asked by Councillors (Orange pages).

 

(Members are reminded of the timescale adopted by Council for notice of questions. A Councillor may only ask a question if:

 

·         It is delivered in writing to the Head of Legal and Democratic Services by noon on Monday 6 November 2017 or

·         If it relates to urgent business, the Head of Legal and Democratic Services is notified at least half an hour before the start of the meeting.)

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Seven questions had been received by the Head of Legal and Democratic Services and had been circulated in advance of the meeting. The answers are attached in the Appendix.

1954.

Reports of Committees - Audit and Governance Committee (Agenda item 10 (a)) pdf icon PDF 154 KB

To consider the reports of Committees and to receive answers to any questions asked on those reports as follows:

 

a)    Audit and Governance Committee – Summary of decisions taken (White pages);

b)    Pensions Committee (White pages); and

c)    Standards and Ethics Committee (White pages).

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Committee received the report of the Audit and Governance Committee containing a summary of the decisions taken.

 

In the ensuing debate, the following principal points were raised:

 

·         The difficulties associated with the signing off of the Accounts had resulted from finance staff being transferred to address issues associated with the Mercury payroll system. The staff who replaced them were less experienced and their work had not received an adequate level of quality assurance. Previously the Council had a very good record of publishing the Accounts ahead of the statutory deadline. It was important that this year's experience was not repeated. The Chairman of the Committee responded that the Committee would be analysing the lessons learned and ensure that the difficulties experienced this year were not repeated. He was convinced that this was a one-off event and not a systematic problem

·         Concern was expressed about the cost implications of the transfer of staff to address issues raised by the performance of the Mercury payroll system and that the Council was subsidising Liberata. The Chairman of the Committee commented that the additional costs would be reported to the Committee accordingly  

·         Concern was expressed about the impact of the tighter statutory timescale for publishing the Accounts in 2018. The Chairman of the Committee commented that the Committee was aware of the timeframe for the 2017/18 Accounts and would be monitoring performance closely.

1955.

Reports of Committees - Pensions Committee (Agenda item 10 (b))

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Committee received the report of the Pensions Committee containing a summary of the decisions taken.

 

In the ensuing debate, concern was expressed about investment of pension funds in fossil fuels and whether there were any plans to diversify investment on ethical grounds. The Vice-Chairman of the Committee indicated that investment was reviewed on a regular basis but the Council had a fiduciary duty to act on behalf of its members.

1956.

Reports of Committees - Standards and Ethics Committee (Agenda item 10 (c))

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Committee received the report of the Standards and Ethics Committee containing a summary of the decisions taken.