Agenda and minutes

The Members had before them:

A.         The Agenda papers (previously circulated).

B.         11 questions submitted to the Head of Legal and Democratic Services (previously circulated).

C.        The Minutes of the Council held on 14 January 2016 (previously circulated).

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

Apologies for absence were received from Mr M H Broomfield, Mr C J Bloore, Ms L R Duffy and Mr W P Gretton.

Mr M L Bayliss declared an interest in Agenda item 6(a) as a member of his wider family worked for the County Council; this did not amount to a DPI.

Mr A C Roberts declared an interest in Agenda item 7 as his daughter was employed by Public Health, England.

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,10  February 2016). Further details are available on the Council’s website. Enquiries can also be made through the telephone number/e-mail address listed below.

Mr Marshall Moses presented a petition on behalf of residents of the Majors Green area calling for improved road safety in that area.  Specifically the documentation sought traffic measures along Tilehouse Lane from Whitlocks End train station along the Haslucks Green Road to the junction of Rushleigh Road.

Mr L C R Mallett presented a petition from residents in his division relating to speeding issues on the Rock Hill Estate.  The residents sought reduced speed limits on Breakback Road/Foxwalks Avenue/Alderley road and Whitford Close (20 mph); and a full assessment of the risk to pedestrians and vehicle users on the junction joining Fox Land and Breakback Road.  The petition sought whatever safety and traffic calming measures necessary to mitigate risk.

The Chairman thanked both participants for their contribution and promised they would receive a written response from the appropriate Cabinet Member with Responsibility in due course.

To approve as a correct record and authorise the signing of the Minutes of the meeting held on 14 January 2016 (circulated previously electronically).

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting held on 14 January 2016 be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

To receive any announcements to be made by the Chairman.

The Chairman referred members generally to the printed announcements and drew particular attention to Dr Harling's last meeting of the Council.  Dr Harling was thanked by the Chairman and the Council for his work in Worcestershire.

The Chairman welcomed Masters students from the University of Birmingham to the meeting.

The Chairman of the Council also made reference to the Civic Service in Worcester Cathedral on 13 March 2016 and to Pershore Town Council's recent achievement of the gold level of Quality Status accreditation.

To consider a report on a constitutional matter (yellow pages).

RESOLVED that Mr P A Tuthill be appointed Chairman of the Economy and Environment Overview and Scrutiny Panel.

RESOLVED that the seat on the Waste Credit Governance Committee recently vacated by the Independent Alliance Group following the Stourport-on-Severn by-election, be allocated to the Conservative Group.

To consider the report of the Cabinet on decisions required. This report is on yellow pages (to follow).

The Council had before it a detailed report on the Budget for 2016-2017 which the Cabinet had considered on 4 February 2016 and which the Leader of the Council and the Cabinet were recommending formally for adoption by the Council.

All Councillors had received a copy of the full report and Appendices considered by the Cabinet on 4 February 2016 and had been requested to bring those to the meeting to allow full consideration of all the issues.  Members were reminded that the Appendices referred to were those presented to 4 February Cabinet.

2016/17 Local Government Finance Settlement

The final report set out that the figures for the 2016/17 Local Government Finance Settlement were unknown at the time the 4 February 2016 Budget report to Cabinet was drafted and therefore the report to Cabinet was on the basis of the provisional settlement. 

Cabinet Report – 4 February 2016

The Cabinet had considered the report of the Cabinet Member with Responsibility for Finance which included details of:

• those recommendations made by the Cabinet on 17 December 2015 on the draft budget for 2016/17

• the budget 2016/17 consultation and engagement.  The Council had engaged with a wide range of individuals and organisations through various channels.  The draft budget proposals were also considered by the Overview and Scrutiny Performance Board and its response had been before the Cabinet on 4 February

• confirmation of areas of investment in the Corporate Plan priorities of Open for Business, Children and Families, Health & Well-being and The Environment in 2016/17 and across the Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP)

• revenue budget monitoring for 2015/16.  The outturn forecast to 30 November 2015 indicated a cost pressure of £2.3m against authorised cash limits or 0.7% of the overall budget.  It was anticipated that this variance would be reduced to ensure services were delivered within the Council's cash limited budget for 2016/17.  With this breakeven forecast there still remained, in common with a number of other local authorities, a significant adverse variance and financial pressure with regard to Children's Social Care Placements.  The FutureFit transformational programme continued to make good progress and the 2015/16 target of £27.5m was forecast to be achieved.  General balances were likely to remain at £13m at the end of the 2015/16 financial year

• the proposal for the virement and transfer of £0.6m to earmarked reserves with regard to the Councillor's Divisional Funds Scheme as part of the December 2015 forecast reporting.  This did not require alteration of the net cash limits approved by Full Council

• the work needed to close the provisional financial gap.  The requirement to achieve an average annual level of budget reductions, efficiencies and income generation opportunities of £25m remained.  However, due to the profile of the Government's proposals for reductions in Revenue Support Grant (RSG) there would be an increased level of budget reductions, efficiencies and income generation required in the 2017/18 financial year

• the budget requirement of £327.8m against funding from the Government and Council Tax of £325.8m leaving an initial funding  ...  view the full minutes text for item 1764.

The Council had before it a report on a suggested addition to the Capital Programme.  The report set out that the County Council had a statutory duty to provide sufficient school places for all children resident in the county who wished to attend a state-funded school.  As part of the annual school place planning and monitoring exercise, officers had identified a need to provide additional permanent places in three areas of the county from September 2017.

This need for additional places was driven by a combination of underlying demographic changes and additional children arising from housing growth.  Three schools: Red Hill CE Primary, Worcester; Rushwick CE Primary, Malvern and Wychbold First, Droitwich were identified as candidates for expansion based on their location in relation to the areas of growth and their status as popular and successful schools.

Consultation took place on the draft proposals between 2 November and 11 December 2015 and included publication of written consultation documents and a consultation event for stakeholders at each school.  After taking into account the responses to the consultations for all three schools, the majority of which were in favour of expansion, the Cabinet had approved publication of statutory notices to expand the schools with associated increases in Published Admission Numbers to be implemented by September 2017:  The increases were:

·    Red Hill CE Primary School, Worcester from 30 to 60 pupils per year

·    Rushwick CE Primary School, Malvern from 20 to 30 pupils per year

·    Wychbold First School, Droitwich from 20 to 30 pupils per year.

The Cabinet had also authorised the Director of Children, Families & Communities to approve those proposals in respect of which no objections to the Public Notices were received and the Cabinet Member with Responsibility for Children and Families would decide those proposals in respect of which objections to the Public Notices were received.

The report set out that the capital costs of the proposed expansions would be met from the County Council's Basic Need capital grant for 2016/17.  Contributions from housing development would also be used where available and in line with regulations governing the use of such funds.  All schools which expand at the request of the Council were entitled to additional revenue support through the mechanism agreed with the Schools' Forum.  This support would apply from the date of implementation until all year groups at the school were operating at the new capacity.

The Council was being asked to approve the addition of the necessary building works associated with these expansions to the 2016/17 Children's Services Capital Investment Programme within the Capital Programme.

RESOLVED that to the extent that proposed expansions at Red Hill CE and Rushwick CE Primary Schools and Wychbold First School are agreed, pursuant to the authorisations given by Cabinet on 4 February 2016, the addition of the necessary building works associated with these expansions to the 2016/17 Children's Services Capital Investment Programme within the Capital Programme be approved.

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, 4 February 2016.

The Council had before it a Notice of Motion standing in the names of Mr G J Vickery, Mr J Baker, Mr P M McDonald, Mr R C Lunn and Mr P Denham.

The Notice of Motion was moved by Mr G J Vickery and seconded by Mr J Baker who both spoke in favour of it.

The Council then agreed to consider and deal with the Motion on the day.

An amendment was then moved by Mr M J Hart and seconded by Mrs S L Blagg. With the consent of the mover and seconder of the original motion the amendment so moved was adopted as the substantive motion and received general support.

RESOLVED that the health and wellbeing of the public of Worcestershire is a key priority of this Council and this can be demonstrated by the fact that it was one of the Council's corporate priorities.

Council agrees that this should be considered in all major policies and decisions of the Council.

Council congratulates the Health and Wellbeing Board for previously considering the issue of Public Health Impact Assessments and developing a process for their completion.

Council agrees that all reports presented to Council should have a Public Health Impact Assessment and requests that Cabinet follow the same procedure in its reports.

The Council had before it a Notice of Motion standing in the names of Mr G J Vickery, Mr J Baker, Mr P M McDonald, Mr R C Lunn and Mr P Denham.

The Notice of Motion was moved by Mr G J Vickery and seconded by Mr P M McDonald who both spoke in favour of it.

The Council agreed to consider and deal with the Motion on the day.

Members speaking in favour of the Motion:

·         emphasised the leadership role of the Council and of sending a general message about alcohol reduction and health

·         that in addition to this advice direct action would have a very important effect on perception of alcohol and its consumption and over consumption

·         suggested there was a continuing presence of alcohol in some parts of the building despite the policy adopted in 2010

·         alluded to how a change in how alcohol and alcohol abuse were perceived in society needed to mirror the way in which tobacco's decline had taken place only with much greater swiftness.

Members speaking against the Motion:

·         the Leader confirmed that no drinks cabinet had been moved – a display cabinet with no alcohol in it had been moved

·         claimed the motion was simply a thinly veiled reference to the former Leader of the Council and was both opportunistic and shallow

·         suggested that the thrust of the motion was based on a misinterpretation of a simple furniture moving exercise and the Council already had in place a strong and very workable policy restricting alcohol. There was no evidence that this was not being followed, nor had there been a single complaint to that effect

·         that the County Council no longer controlled parts of the County Hall campus and as such the motion would be unworkable.

On being put to the meeting the Motion was lost.

The Council had before it a Notice of Motion standing in the names of Mrs E B Tucker, Mrs F M Oborski, Prof J W Raine, Mrs S Askin, Mr T A L Wells and Mr M E Jenkins.

The Notice of Motion was moved by Mrs E Tucker and seconded by Mr T A L Wells who both spoke in favour of it.

Council agreed to consider and deal with the Motion on the day.

Those speaking in favour of the Motion:

·         said there was growing disquiet that methods of scrutinising contracts and commissioned services was not as robust as had been promised at the time these new processes had been introduced

·         claimed that transparency and accountability had been lost in a headlong and dogmatic dash to commission services.  This left a void and was a dangerous position for the Council

·         reiterated that some members had been denied access to some Key Performance Indicators data on the grounds it was commercially sensitive.  This was an intolerable situation

·         urged the Council to tighten up procedures in order to ensure Council Tax papers were getting best value for money

Those speaking against the Motion:

·         emphasised the whole commissioning process was as transparent and fair as possible.  Members were involved in briefing meetings and were able to see a great deal of information

·         pointed out that the Council operated in a mixed economy and whether services were commissioned or not all were subject to existing robust procedures

·         reporting mechanisms were in place and councillors were all in a position to challenge standards of service delivery through reports from Cabinet and Cabinet Members with Responsibility, Question Time, Scrutiny, service and Commissioning briefings.

On being put to the meeting the Motion was lost.

To receive the report of the Cabinet Member with Responsibility for Transformation and Commissioning on current issues and proposed developments within his area of responsibility and to receive answers to any question on the report (green pages).

The Cabinet Member with Responsibility for Transformation and Commissioning presented his report which covered a number of overarching issues:

·         a retrospective look at the year's work

·         FutureFit - Your Life Your Choice

                           - Care Act

                            -  Superfast Broadband

·         Human Resources and Organisational Development

                            -  support for the Commissioning

                               process

                            -  Talent Management Framework

                            -  Lunch and Learn Sessions

·         Property

                            -  Place Partnership

                            -  One Public Estate Programme

                            -  Parkside, Bromsgrove

                            -  County Hall Campus

·         Technology and Customer Service

                            -  100% online by 2017

                            -  Contract with HP

                            -  Contract with Civica

                            -  greater use of biometrics

·         Commercial Team

                            -  directorate restructuring

                            -  support for the commissioning process

                            -  commissioning of transactional HR

                               and finance services

·         Communication

                            -  improved methods

                            - plain English

                            -  excellence in Cyber Security

                            -  Travel Twitter account

                            -  inward investment and jobs

·         Legal and Democratic Services

                            -  Democratic Services streamlined

                            -  processes in Democratic Services

                               sharpened

                            -  expanded service provision to

                               Academy Schools

                            -  competitive CIPFA benchmarking

                            -  Legal Services meet increased

                               demand

                            -  Legal Services commissioning

                               review shows in-house service

                               best value for money.

The Cabinet Member with Responsibility answered questions about the report which included:

·         how success was measured

·         layers of management and how reductions were achieved

·         how experiences to date with services commissioned out would inform ongoing and future commissioning exercises

·         energy savings at the new Parkside Development and whether these were as planned or projected

·         reliance on digital services was not penalising those not able to access the Internet

·         that flexible and mobile working (FAME) was not placing employees under unreasonable stress to work longer and more intensively.

The Cabinet Member with Responsibility promised:

·         to respond to a specific observation/complaint that the broadband  in the Hither Green Lane area was not of 'superfast' quality.

·         to give a written response on Parkside in Bromsgrove relating to the heating of the new Council Chamber.  This would include what were the actual figures compared to the predicted figures and whether those were in line with the savings promised in the initial and subsequent justification for the project.

·         would investigate concerns that 'signposting' by The Hub might be giving advice which was too general and should be more sharply focussed.   It was suggested that the default position should not be 'ring your local councillor/CMR'.

·         a written response on what are the value/proportions for each sector - commercial sector, social enterprises, partnerships or the voluntary and community sector in commissioning of contracts?

The Chairman thanked the Cabinet Member with Responsibility for his report.

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 8 February 2016 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.)

Eleven questions had been received by the Head of Legal and Democratic Services and had been circulated before the meeting.  Ten questions were asked at the meeting and answered.  Question 11 was formally withdrawn.  (All answers are enclosed with these Minutes.)

To consider the report of the special meeting of the Pensions Committee (3 February 2016) (white pages – to follow) which summarises the decisions taken by that body.

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