Agenda and minutes

The Members had before them:

A.    The Agenda papers (previously circulated);

B.    9 questions submitted to the Head of Legal and Democratic Services (previously circulated); and

C.   The Minutes of the meeting held on 15 February 2018 (previously circulated).

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

Apologies for absence were received from Mr A A J Adams, Mr A Fry, Mr P M McDonald, Ms T L Onslow, Prof J W Raine and Mr P A Tuthill.

Mr J H Smith declared an interest in Agenda item 8 (c) as his wife was proposed as Vice-Chairman of the Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee and he would not participate in the item.

To elect a Chairman of the Council to hold office until his or her successor becomes entitled to act.

The outgoing Chairman described her year of office and thanked Council and its officers for their support. A Minute's silence was held for those who have passed on.

RESOLVED that Mr B Clayton be elected Chairman of the Council to hold office until his successor becomes entitled to act.

To appoint a Vice-Chairman of the Council to hold office until immediately after the election of a Chairman at the next Annual meeting of the Council.

The nomination of Mr R P Tomlinson was moved by Mr P Middlebrough and seconded by Mr R C Adams.

It was then proposed by Mr R C Lunn and seconded by Mr L C R Mallett that Mr P Denham be appointed Vice-Chairman of the Council.

RESOLVED that Mr R P Tomlinson be appointed Vice-Chairman to hold office until immediately after the election of Chairman at the next Annual meeting of the Council.

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, 16 May 2018). Further details are available on the Council’s website. Enquiries can also be made through the telephone number/e-mail address listed below.

Mr K Seago asked questions concerning issues associated with the A456.

The Chairman thanked Mr Seago for his questions and said he would receive a written reply from the relevant Cabinet Member.

To approve as a correct record and authorise the signing of the Minutes of the meeting held on 15 February 2018 (previously circulated electronically).

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting held on 15 February 2018 be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

To receive any announcements to be made by the Chairman (both the retiring Chairman and the incoming Chairman).

Noted.

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

a)    Reports of Cabinet – Matters which require a decision (Yellow pages); and

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

Council considered the Worcestershire 5G Consortium project. The details were set out in the report.

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

·         The Leader of the Council introduced the report. He was delighted to secure £4.8m additional funding with £3m match funding to develop the 5G testbed which was one of only 6 in the country. The project would allow the testing of new 5G technology in a business environment. The project would boost productivity through the use of new technology and put Worcestershire on the map

·         The Cabinet Member for Economy and Infrastructure commented that the project was based at Malvern Science Park and focused on advanced technology and cyber security in association with Mazak, Bosch and QinetiQ with an educational element provided by the Heart of Worcestershire College. The ultimate aim of the upgrade to 5G technology was to provide a faster broadband signal

·         The project was cautiously welcomed by another member but the total cost of the project and the ability of the Council to pay for it was queried. The Leader of the Council responded that the Government would fund the project together with match funding rather than through Council Tax

·         Concern was expressed that should the project prove to be successful, further funding would be required to enable the roll out of the 5G technology. The Leader of the Council responded that if the Government decided to proceed with a wider application of 5G technology, it would form part of a Government programme and this Council would need to make a decision whether to participate based on a costs/benefit analysis.

RESOLVED that the additional £4.81 million income and matching expenditure that will form part of the Economy & Infrastructure revenue budget in 2018/19 for the Worcestershire 5G Consortium project be noted.

The Council considered an addition to the capital programme for the replacement of the Social Care Case Management System. The details were set out in the report.

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

·         The Leader of the Council introduced the report. He indicated that the existing Social Care Case Management System, Framework-i was coming to the end of its life cycle and would not be supported from December 2018. The benefits of upgrading the system were set out in the report.  Approval was therefore sought for the allocation of £2m from the existing contingency within the Capital Programme to seek a suitable replacement system 

·         An assurance was sought that the new software would be suitable for use by the Alternative Delivery Model (ADM) adopted by the Council for Children's social care. The Leader of the Council responded that there were a number of suppliers in the market place and their systems would be tested accordingly to ensure that the most applicable software was commissioned

·         A comment was made that it appeared that Framework-i had been failing for some time and yet the system was only being replaced at this late stage. The Leader responded that Framework-i was continuing to meet the Council's needs but because it would not be supported from December 2018, it needed replacing.  

RESOLVED the addition of £2 million to the Capital Programme for Social Care Case Management System replacement be approved and the capital cash limits be updated accordingly.

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

·         Children's Social Care Services Alternative Delivery Model - Business Case Approval

·         Plastics and Non-Recyclable Cups - Notices of Motion from Council 15 February 2018

·         Use of Children's Centre Buildings - Transfer of the Outreach Centre at the Grove Primary School, Malvern

·         Resources Report.

To consider a report on (a) findings of the Council Working Group, (b) Council Meeting dates 2019, and (c) Chairmen and Vice-Chairmen of Member Bodies (Yellow pages).

a) Council Working Group

Council considered the report of the Council Working Group. The details were set out in the report.

The changes to the arrangements for Council meetings as proposed by the Council Working Group were moved by Mr J H Smith and seconded by Mr M J Hart.

The mover and seconder spoke in favour of the recommendation, thanking all those who took part in the workings of the Council Working Group although it was noted that the Labour Group had not participated. Sheena Jones and Debbie Dale were also thanked for their support to the Group.

An amendment was moved by Mrs E B Tucker and seconded by Mrs F M Oborski that consideration of the findings of the Council Working Group be deferred in order for the task approved by Council, in response to the original Notice of Motion, be properly addressed as agreed in January 2016 when the Notice of Motion was accepted.

The mover and seconder of the amendment then spoke in favour of its adoption: the key points being:

·         The original Notice of Motion had been agreed unanimously and focused on improving the quality of debate at full Council meetings, improving opportunities for non-executive members and better utilising their skills. It was disappointing therefore that the recommendations from the Group did not recognise these aspects but instead focused on ways of shortening full Council meetings and on this basis, consideration of the report should be deferred

·         The findings of the Working Group totally ignored the basis on which it was set up to improve transparency and increase the involvement of all backbenchers

·         How could every councillor make a strong contribution to debate when the time available for Notices of Motion, questions and Cabinet Member reports was being reduced? The premise behind the findings appeared to be that full Council meetings were too long but this was rejected. Members had a duty to represent their constituents at full Council meetings and the present time commitment for members was not excessive

·         The revised deadline for the submission of questions would prevent councillors from raising important issues at the last minute

·         The 90 minute time restriction on Notices of Motion was undemocratic and stifled debate. The restriction of motions to statutory functions or County Council matters failed to recognise the impact of national issues on the local area. The current procedures worked effectively

·         The time limit proposed for Cabinet Member reports and answers restricted the opportunity of councillors to fully question, complement or criticise the administration on complex issues as well as restricting the time available to  the Cabinet Member to provide (in some cases) lengthy replies 

·         Bearing in mind, there were only 6 meetings of the Council per year and Notices of Motion would be restricted to 90 minutes for discussion under the proposals, each individual councillor would have very limited time over the year to contribute to debate

·         Consideration of the Working Group report should be deferred to allow the full range of issues  ...  view the full minutes text for item 1996.

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, 10 May 2018.

The Council had before it a Notice of Motion 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 Mrs E B Tucker and seconded by Mrs F M Oborski who both spoke in favour of it.

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

Those in favour of the motion made the following comments:

·         The Notice of Motion requested greater transparency in the budget process for members and the public. Members only became aware of the CIPFA report as a result of a Freedom of Information (FOI) request some considerable time after Cabinet received it in 2017. It was also concerning that the Council had not taken up the offer of a further report from CIPFA which was included in the fee. The budget was one of the few statutory functions that full Council considered and all members should be made fully aware of all the information available to enable properly informed amendments to be formulated

·         It was accepted that a lot of information was made available to councillors but it was apparent that the administration was only sharing the information it felt appropriate to share. The CIPFA report was critical of the Council's budget. It appeared that the administration was trying to hide the details by not sharing them. It was impossible to scrutinise the budget without a core document being made available.

Those against the motion made the following comments:

·         The Leader of the Council commented that the central premise of the Motion was that members were not being made aware of the financial position of the Council and this was not the case. The themes in the CIPFA slides were made known to members. The budget-setting process was long established, open and transparent. The draft medium term financial plan had been published well in advance and members had had the opportunity at numerous briefings, panels and public events to be engaged. All councillors had access to detailed budget reports which included the financial risks and views of the Chief Financial Officer. Members had the opportunity at any time to seek advice from the Chief Financial Officer. Budget briefings were poorly attended and he urged members to attend future briefings. The Cabinet's role was to formulate proposals and for Scrutiny to examine them and put forward alternative proposals. An informal meeting of SLT/Cabinet had been presented with a series of slides produced by CIPFA in June 2017. TheCIPFA slides had been commissioned by the previous Chief Financial Officer to inform his advice to SLT/Cabinet members at the start of the new Council. The slides raised a series of questions and suggestions but the core issues in them had already been addressed and made public

·         Attendance at budget meetings of the OSPB and Cabinet was poor and all members needed to make more effort to engage in the budget-setting process

·         The CIPFA  ...  view the full minutes text for item 1997.

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

The motion was moved by Mr R C Lunn and seconded by Mr L C R Mallett who both spoke in favour of it.

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

Those in favour of the motion made the following comments:

·         Any internal or external report that involved the allocation of public funds should be shared with members, particularly reports concerned with the Council's finances. The issue was not the commissioning of the CIPFA report but the refusal to share it as well as the cost

·         It was not necessarily the numbers set out in the CIPFA report but the commentary that was important. In particular, the premise that the Chief Financial Officer did not have the resources or structural capacity to deliver the administration's plans. The report had been funded from the public purse and therefore should be available to everyone

·         The transparency of the tendering process by the previous Chief Financial Officer in the commissioning the CIPFA report and the value for money of the report was queried 

·         The Motion was not concerned with informal officer/member discussions but where reports had been commissioned at council taxpayers' expense, these should be shared with all councillors.

Those against the motion made the following comments:

·         The fundamental principles of the Cabinet system allowed the administration to consider how to develop policy outside the formal council meetings process. The danger of this Motion was that it would prevent the administration from doing this important policy development work. In reality, not many reports had been produced that had not been made public. This Motion would mean that reports would have to be shared with the public and press which could contain legal opinion or commercially sensitive information. A safety first culture would develop which would discourage more imaginative ideas

·         It was queried whether the main opposition group would change their stance on increasing Council Tax based on the advice from CIPFA in their slides

·         CIPFA was the single recognised chartered institute for financial services and therefore it was appropriate for the former Chief Financial Officer to commission the slides without being concerned about his formal role in that organisation

·         The Leader of the Council commented that it was not possible for the Council to operate without holding informal policy discussions.

On a named vote, the motion was lost.

Those voting in favour were:

Ms P Agar, Mr C J Bloore, Mr P Denham, Ms P A Hill, Dr C Hotham, Mr M E Jenkins, Mr R C Lunn, Mr L C R Mallett, Mrs F M Oborski, Mrs M A Rayner, Ms C M Stalker, Mrs E B Tucker, Mr R M Udall, Mr T A L  ...  view the full minutes text for item 1998.

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

The motion was moved by Mr R M Udall and seconded by Ms C M Stalker who both spoke in favour of it.

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

Those in favour of the motion made the following comments:

·         The community orchards scheme provided an opportunity to plant rare native trees, bring people/communities together, working outside, promote healthy eating and lifestyles and have fun. The biggest problem for these projects was the availability of land. The Council had pockets of land available across the county and he asked the Cabinet Member to consider how Council land could be used to promote this scheme. Local businesses had already stepped forward to sponsor the scheme so there would be no cost to the council taxpayer

·         Community orchards were being established all over the country and had proved successful in providing a community asset, improving community cohesion, addressing social isolation, improving mental and physical health and increasing interest in fruit-growing  

·         There had been plenty of opportunity to put forward an amendment to this Motion to ensure that its wording was consistent with the Council's existing policy.

Those against the motion made the following comments:

·         This Motion was unnecessary because the Council already operated a community asset policy which governed the introduction of community orchards. The Council assessed all land-use proposals on their merits and in line with this policy

·         The problem was that trees planted as part of these schemes were often stolen or died and it was necessary to create a revenue stream to maintain the trees after the initial planting

·         The Cabinet Member for the Environment advised that trees were often planted in the wrong place or soil and died as a result. The county had become a designated pollinator and had already promoted a number of community orchards. The existing process operated in association with Worcestershire Wildlife Trust and looked at ways of promoting community wildlife and orchard projects. A Government grant would be available in July to support it.

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

To receive the report of the Cabinet Member with Responsibility for Economy and Infrastructure on current issues and proposed developments within his area of responsibility and to receive answers to any questions on the report (Green pages).

The Cabinet Member with Responsibility for Environment and Infrastructure presented his report which concerned a number of overaching issues:

·         Economic Growth and Investment

·         Worcestershire Local Transport Plan

·         Worcestershire Rail Investment Strategy

·         North Cotswold Line Rask Force

·         Midlands Connect

·         Digital Connectivity – Broadband and 5G

·         Major Infrastructure Projects – Southern Link Road, Worcestershire Parkway, Hoobrook Link Road, Pershore Infrastructure Improvements, Churchfields Urban Village Highways Infrastructure Improvements, Kidderminster Rail Station, Public Realm Programme and Bromsgrove Eastern Bypass A38 Corridor

·         Strategic Planning, Development Control and Waste and Minerals Plan

·         Worcestershire Innovation

·         Worcestershire Local Enterprise Partnership

·         Business Support Programme

·         LEADER Programme

·         Worcestershire Business Central

·         Gamer Changer Sites – Worcester Six, Redditch Eastern Gateway, Malvern Hills Science Park and Technology Park and South Kidderminster Enterprise Park.

The Cabinet Member answered questions about his report which included the following topics:

·         Progress of the diary festival

·         Worcestershire Local Transport Plan – progress at Alvechurch and Wythall rail stations

·         Worcestershire Local Transport Plan – Progress of Evesham Traffic Survey

·         The average salary in Worcestershire compared to Herefordshire

·         Worcestershire Local Transport Plan – Fernhill Heath Railway holt

·         Worcestershire Local Transport Plan – transport needs of Worcester City

·         Worcestershire Local Transport Plan – Bromsgrove Western Relief Road

·         Worcestershire Rail Investment Strategy – Connectivity aspirations

·         Worcestershire Rail Investment Strategy – Frequency of trains on the Birmingham to Stratford rail overspill parking issues at Whitlocks End Rail Station

·         Worcestershire Rail Investment Strategy – Timescale for rail service improvements

·         North Cotswold Line Task Force – state of the County roads compared to Oxfordshire

·         Provision of a shuttle service and parking at Worcestershire Parkway Station

·         Completion of the Worcester ring road

·         Parking at Kidderminster Rail Station

·         Footway and cycleway access to Pershore Rail Station and Keytec Business Park

·         Installation of yellow box markings at the island junction by the Holiday Inn on the A38

·         Transport of minerals by barge and reinstatement of former minerals development sites to recreational use

·         Progress and review date for the Green Infrastructure Strategy

·         Highways Officer attendance at Bromsgrove District Council's Overview and Scrutiny meeting – A38 Bromsgrove Eastern Bypass Corridor Major Scheme

·         Business growth and job creation

·         Flood Relief Programme – Upton Marina

·         Redditch Eastern Gateway – foreign investment

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 14 May 2018 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.)

Nine 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.

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);

c)    Planning and Regulatory Committee (White pages); and

d)    Standards and Ethics Committee (White pages).

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

The Committee Chairman commented that good progress was being made in producing the final Accounts and it was anticipated that they would be submitted to Grant Thornton, the external auditor on schedule. In response to a query, the Committee Chairman would ensure all councillors were kept informed of any issues that arose that impacted on the finalisation of the Accounts.

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

The Committee Chairman indicated that the Worcestershire Pension Scheme had been rated as one of the top performing Pension Fund in the country and he commended the work of the cross-party Pension Investment Panel, chaired by Mr A I Hardman in this respect.

The Council received the report of the Planning and Regulatory Committee containing a summary of the decisions taken.

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