Agenda and minutes

The Members had before them:

A.         The Agenda papers (previously circulated).

B.         12 questions submitted to the Head of Legal and Democratic Services (previously circulated).

C.        The Minutes of the Council held on 11 February 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 L C R Mallett, Mr R J Sutton, Mr R M Udall and Mr T A L Wells.

The Chairman announced he would not be standing for re-election, referred to the printed Announcements and his year in office and thanked members and officers for making it such a memorable year.

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

The nomination of Mr A P Miller was moved by Mr J H Smith and seconded by Mrs E A Eyre.  There were no other nominations.

RESOLVED that Mr A P Miller be elected Chairman of the Council for the ensuing year, 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 Mrs J M L A Griffiths was moved by Mrs S L Blagg and seconded by Mr A C Roberts.

A further nomination, that of Mr A Fry was moved by Mr P M McDonald and seconded by Mr R C Lunn.

RESOLVED that Mrs J M L A Griffiths be elected Vice-Chairman of the Council until the election of the Chairman at the next annual meeting.

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

Two petitions were presented at the meeting and a question was asked.

Mr P Denham presented a petition on behalf of residents of Rainbow Hill who were calling on the County Council to assist in the retention of the 33A and 34A bus service in that area of Worcester.

Mr Bill Mapp presented a petition concerned with parking in St. Alban's Close and Peterborough Close near to Perry Wood Primary School.  Local residents were seeking the application by the Council of a Parking Scheme to alleviate increasing difficulties.

Mr Rod Hopkins asked a question about the possibility of provision of pedestrian crossings at the Westlands Roundabout on the A38 in Droitwich.

The Chairman thanked all participants for their contributions and said responses would be forthcoming from the relevant Cabinet Members with Responsibility.

To approve as a correct record and authorise the signing of the Minutes of the meeting held on 12 February 2016 (circulated previously electronically).

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting held on 11 February 2016 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).

The Chairman referred to earlier announcements made by the outgoing Chairman and made reference to the Council group photograph to be taken later in the day.

To receive this report and to receive answers to any questions on it (blue pages – attached).

The Leader of the Council presented his annual state of the county report which covered several overarching themes:

·         Open for Business

·         Children and Families

·         Health and Wellbeing

·         Environment

·         Focused on the views of our residents and businesses

·         The Financial Challenge

·         An Enabling Authority

·         Our toolkit to deliver financial stability and better outcomes

·         reaching out across county boundaries

·         Pension Fund

·         Audit and Governance Committee.

The Leader answered questions about the report which included:

·         demand management and the reduction of services in key areas.  Particular mention was made of library opening hours and the way in which residents were affected.  The Leader stated that he was concerned to protect as many front-line services as possible and reductions in the library service had been targeted on hours identified as those least popular with customers.

·         problems of oversubscription in schools and certain high-profile cases within the city of Worcester were highlighted.  Members also highlighted potential problems with further waves of 'academisation' and academies being insensitive to local conditions - an example being the experience in Redditch of the attempt to impose 2-tier system of education in an arbitrary and unilateral manner.  The Leader made reference to levels of oversubscription generally and restated the Council's position on Academy schools and their relationship with the County Council.

·         various comments on highways conditions, capacity and journey times and how this impacted on the Council's Open for Business aims.  The Leader said specific points raised at the meeting would be examined.

·         Bromsgrove Railway Station.   Members spoke about the short-term difficulties associated with the construction works.  The Leader responded and also talked about the longer-term benefits which included train frequencies and the proposed electrification works on the line.

·         Stronger Families funding Phase 2 - would the Council be in a position to deliver given reductions in funding?  A general answer was given which referred to the funding of both phases.

·         The Council's digital aspirations and how this had to include support for such processes as "Your life, your choice" and other on-line services.  The Leader confirmed it was his wish that as many people as possible should be assisted to access the Council's services in this way.

·         would resources be better invested in front-line services rather than the further expansion of superfast broadband.  The Leader reiterated the advantages to the county of enhancing this infrastructure.

·         visits around the county and which members these involved.  The Leader also outlined plans for visits to the EfW plan in Hartlebury and the sharing information about its operation.

·         disposal of assets and whether a register was being prepared and if it would be available for members.  The Leader said this information would be signposted for Members.

·         a possible increase in the Councillors' Divisional Fund.  The Leader spoke generally about the Fund and how popular it has become with Members.

·         the role, influence and extent of the 'Midlands Engine'.

The Leader promised written responses on the Residents' Survey and areas which had not been highlighted as a priority for the County Council.

The Chairman  ...  view the full minutes text for item 1779.

To consider a report on decisions required by Council (yellow pages) and on decisions taken by the Cabinet (white pages).

The Council had before it a report on the conclusion of a review of its computer and software requirements to take account of future service delivery and operating procedures.  The report contained a recommendation that an addition of £1.6m be made to the Capital Programme funded from the uncommitted headroom allocation for new starters.

RESOLVED that a £1.6 million addition to the Capital Programme, to extend the ICT Replacement Programme for three years 2016/17 to 2018/19, be approved and the capital cash limits be updated accordingly.

The Leader of the Council reported the following topics and answered questions in relation to them:

·         Property Asset Strategy - Enabling Economic Development and Service Delivery for the Council

·         Worcestershire County Council Local Flood Risk Management Strategy

·         Resources Report

-        Revenue Budget monitoring 2015/16 - Outturn Forecasts at 31 December 2015

-        Capital Programme Budget Monitoring - 2015/16 Forecast

-        Future Fit Programme Update

-        Pearl Izumi Tour Services - Redditch 26 May 2016

To consider a report on various constitutional and other related matters.

The Council had before it a report recommending a temporary amendment to the Council's Financial Regulations.  The report set out that officers had worked hard in 2015/16 to balance the need to consistently improve on the outcomes that the Council delivered whilst managing within their cash limited budgets. Whilst financial performance for 2015/16 confirmed that budgets would breakeven, this had been achieved through the use of existing flexibility to manage cost pressures arising. The report clarified that looking forward there was a need to identify and deliver £80 million of income generation, efficiencies or budget reductions over the next three years, with £34 million relating to next financial year alone as the pattern of Government funding reductions was front loaded for 2017/18.

In view of the size of the financial challenge in 2017/18 the Chief Financial Officer had confirmed that the Financial Regulations limiting Directorates to a carry forward up to 2% of their budgets to support between year flexibility would need be relaxed over the next two financial years and would be re-established at the 2% limit from 2018/19 onwards.

The report made clear that Regulation 28 of the Financial Regulations set out the 2% limit, and consequently there was a recommendation to amend the Constitution accordingly to facilitate this variation.  

RESOLVED that a temporary amendment to the Council's Financial Regulations to allow the Directorates' 2% carry forward limit for earmarked reserves to be relaxed for 2016/17 and 2017/18 be approved.

The Council had before it a report on changes to the Directorate structure.

The report set out that when the previous Director of Adult Services and Health left the Council in February 2016, the statutory role of Director of Public Health (DPH) and its associated responsibilities were removed by the Appointments etc Panel from within the job specification for the 'Director of Adult Services and Health' post and a new reporting line established directly to the Chief Executive. The Chief Executive was now proposing that this separation of the statutory roles of Director of Adult Services and Director of Public Health be carried forward into the Council's organisational structure, with the current Directorate of Adult Services and Health dividing to become the Directorate of Adult Services and the Directorate of Public Health with effect from 1 July 2016. The DPH role would be at Head of Service level and the proposal will therefore not lead to an additional Chief Officer post.

The report set out that this proposed separation would encourage a more Council-wide ambition for public health with a focused approach, to ensure a greater positive impact on the population of Worcestershire both young and old and across other services and outcomes within and outside social care.

The report concluded with the statement that in addition to the Council's Public Health functions, 2 'additional' elements were currently also managed by the DPH – Emergency Planning and Community Safety.  It was proposed that these services also transfer to the Directorate of Public Health for management and service continuity.

RESOLVED that that the current DASH Directorate be divided into the Directorate of Adult Services and the Directorate of Public Health as set out in the report with effect from 1 July 2016, and the Head of Legal and Democratic Services be authorised to update the constitution accordingly.

The Council had before it a report on constitutional appointments.

RESOLVED that the constitutional appointments set out in the Appendix to the report be approved.

The Council had before it a report on meeting dates for 2017 up to and including the first meeting of the Council after the County Council elections in May 2017.

RESOLVED that the following dates be approved:

            12 January 2017

             9 February 2017

            25 May 2017

To consider the future work programme being recommended for the OSPB (yellow pages).

The Council had before it a report on the proposed Overview and Scrutiny Work Programme for 2016/2017.

The report set out that effective work programming was the bedrock of an effective scrutiny function. Done well, it could help to lay the foundations for targeted, incisive and timely work on issues of local importance, where scrutiny could add value. Done badly, scrutiny could end up wasting time and resources on issues where the impact of any work done was likely to be minimal.

The report made clear that Worcestershire County Council had a rolling annual Work Programme for its Overview and Scrutiny function, the Work Programme was developed by taking into account the results of the annual Work Programme consultation exercise, the views of the budget scrutiny process, and by prioritising work using scrutiny feasibility criteria in order to ensure that Work Programme topics were selected objectively and that the 'added value' of a review was considered right from the very beginning.

The report also set out that Overview and Scrutiny was a Member-led function and it was important that Members were involved in every stage of development of the Work Programme.

The Work Programme consultation exercise for 2016/17 had involved consideration of the following:

(a)        Items from 2015/16 Work Programme that were not completed or required follow up

(b)        outcomes of the Budget Scrutiny 2015/16 process

(c)        views of Members as community champions

(d)        views of the Executive

(e)        views of officers

(f)        views of stakeholders and partners

(g)        views of the public.

Each Overview and Scrutiny Panel and Committee had received an item at their last meeting (with the exception of Environment and Economy where the March meeting had been cancelled) to discuss and make suggestions for items to be included in the Work Programmes from a Panel/Committee perspective. A series of suggestions were made through this process.

The Leader of Council had consulted his Cabinet members as part of the consultation exercise in order to develop suggestions for the Work Programmes from a Cabinet perspective. A series of suggestions were made by the Cabinet.

County Councillors had been contacted directly by the Scrutiny Unit as part of the consultation exercise asking for suggestions from a Divisional Councillor perspective; a number of suggestions were made through this process.

The Chief Executive consulted the Strategic Leadership Team as part of the consultation process and provided a series of suggestions.

The report also set out that a central part of the consultation exercise was the creation of a webpage where anyone wishing to make suggestions for the Work Programme could go and make them. The web page asked if participants were a County Councillor, council officer, partner, business or member of the public and then invited them to make suggestions based around the current four Council Priority areas of:

·         Open for Business

·         Children and Families

·         The Environment

·         Health and Wellbeing

The online survey did allow other suggestions to be received outside of the Council priority areas.

The survey had been promoted  ...  view the full minutes text for item 1786.

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, 5 May 2016.

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

The Notice of Motion was moved by Mr P Denham and seconded by Mr C J Bloore who both spoke in favour of it.

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

Those speaking in favour suggested:

·         that Government was seeking to erode further the powers of local councils to make decisions affecting their own areas and this should be resisted.

·         that if the concept of localism meant anything it was that locally elected and locally accountable people should be in the position to decide, or at least influence what was best for their local environment.

·         that local democracy was worth defending and the Council should be taking a stand on the principle behind this issue.

·         that no-one could really object to the principle behind the Notice of Motion and urged Council to support it.

Those speaking against suggested:

·         that this was another thinly-veiled attack on the Government given that this county was not an area geologically disposed to allow fracking.

·         that rather than the Chief Executive being the person to send any representations to the Government it should be the Leader of the Council.  The signatories of the Notice of Motion present at the meeting accepted this as an alteration to the Motion.

·         whilst the signatories of the Motion claimed it was a matter of principle, other members suggested it was clearly and specifically about fracking and should be rejected as a time-wasting and mischievous attempt to undermine Government-policy.

·         there was anecdotal evidence that local people did not believe local politicians were the best people to make important planning decisions.

On a named vote the Motion as altered was lost.

Those voting in favour were:

Ms P Agar, Mrs S Askin, Mr J Baker, Mr C J Bloore, Mr P J Bridle, Mr S C Cross, Mr P Denham, Mr A Fry, Ms P A Hill, Mr M E Jenkins, Mr R C Lunn, Mr P M McDonald, Mrs F M Oborski, Mr S R Peters, Prof J W Raine, Mr J W R Thomas, Mrs E B Tucker and Mr G J Vickery (18).

Those voting against were:

Mr A A J Adams, Mr R C Adams, Mr A T Amos, Mr R W Banks, Mr M L Bayliss, Mr A N Blagg, Mrs S L Blagg, Mr J P Campion, Mrs P E Davey, Mr N Desmond, Ms L R Duffy, Mrs E A Eyre, Mr S E Geraghty, Mrs J L M A Griffiths, Mr P Grove, Mr M J Hart, Mrs A T Hingley, Mrs L C Hodgson, Mr I Hopwood, Mr A P Miller, Mr T A Muir, Dr K A Pollock, Mr A C Roberts, Mr J H Smith, Mr C B Taylor, Mr P A Tuthill and Mr G C Yarranton (27).

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

The Notice of Motion was moved by Mr P Denham and seconded by Mr C J Bloore who both spoke in favour of it.

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

Those speaking in favour suggested:

·         that the Government's new stance announced in the past few days was welcome but did not address the main problems which came with the creation of academy schools.

·         that creation of academy schools was not the panacea the proponents of such change claimed it to be.

·         the use of coercion to achieve conversion was not only wrong it was damaging and counter-productive.

·         a straw poll of local schools might be a useful exercise and assist future planning of education.

·         a healthy mixed-economy of schools relied on co-operation and not the use of force which was purely dogmatic.

Those speaking against suggested:

·         the Motion had been overtaken by events and was as a result largely redundant.

·         the academy schools programme had been initiated under a Labour Government which made the contents of the Notice of Motion surprising.  The process had evolved and evidence showed that more pupils were now succeeding in academy schools.

·         it would be serving students ill to change trajectory.  The process of conversion to academy status had brought great improvements in schools and the Government and the Council were committed to that process.

·         the Notice of Motion was another example of political posturing and should be voted down.

On a named vote the Motion was lost.

Those voting in favour were:

Ms P Agar, Mrs S Askin, Mr J Baker, Mr C J Bloore, Mr P Denham, Mr A Fry, Ms P A Hill, Mr M E Jenkins, Mr R C Lunn, Mr P M McDonald, Prof J W Raine, Mrs E B Tucker and Mr G J Vickery (13).

Those voting against were:

Mr A A J Adams, Mr R C Adams, Mr A T Amos, Mr R W Banks, Mr M L Bayliss, Mr A N Blagg, Mrs S L Blagg, Mr J P Campion, Mrs P E Davey, Mr N Desmond, Ms L R Duffy, Mrs E  A Eyre, Mr S E Geraghty, Mrs J L M A Griffiths, Mr M J Hart, Mrs A T Hingley, Mrs L C Hodgson, Mr I Hopwood, Mr A P Miller, Mr T A Muir, Mrs F M Oborski, Mr S R Peters, Dr K A Pollock, Mr A C Roberts, Mr J H Smith, Mr C B Taylor, Mr P A Tuthill and Mr G C Yarranton (28).

Messrs P J Bridle, S C Cross and J W R Thomas abstained (3).

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

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

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

Those speaking in favour suggested:

·         this was a very serious matter and the purpose of the Motion was to address it in a serious manner.

·         this was a long-standing issue and should have been addressed as part of a carefully planned removal schedule.  This had not been done and unless air tests had been conducted current risks were probably unknown.

·         the Council had a duty of care to users of its buildings especially to students and teachers in educational establishments.

Those speaking against suggested:

·         that the Council did take very seriously its duty of care to users of all its buildings.  The Council had a policy for managing asbestos in its buildings which was compliant with all legal and other requirements placed upon it.  It was wrong to suggest that the Council had no knowledge of the range of potentially dangerous substances in buildings, that the Council did not take its duties of care very seriously or that there was a policy of inactivity.

·         that various types of asbestos existed and not all were potentially dangerous to public health.  To treat all in the same way was clearly not appropriate.

·         that this Motion was another example of political posturing and whilst the signatories may be sincere in their wish to protect the users of Council buildings there were elements of scaremongering which were both unfortunate and ill advised.

·         that schools themselves also had a responsibility in management of their premises and members who served as school governors said they took this very seriously.

On a named vote the Motion was lost.

Those voting in favour were:

Ms P Agar, Mr J Baker, Mr P Denham, Mr A Fry, Ms P A Hill, Mr R C Lunn, Mr P M McDonald and Mr G J Vickery (8).

Those voting against were:

Mr A A J Adams, Mr R C Adams, Mr A T Amos, Mrs S Askin, Mr R W Banks, Mr M L Bayliss, Mr A N Blagg, Mrs S L Blagg, Mr P J Bridle, Mr J P Campion, Mr S C Cross, Mrs P E Davey, Mr N Desmond, Ms L R Duffy, Mrs E A Eyre, Mr S E Geraghty, Mrs J L M A Griffiths, Mr M J Hart, Mrs A T Hingley, Mrs L C Hodgson, Mr I Hopwood, Mr M E Jenkins, Mr A P Miller, Mr T A Muir, Mrs F M Oborski, Mr S R Peters, Dr K A Pollock, Prof J W Raine, Mr J H Smith, Mr C B Taylor, Mr J W R Thomas, Mrs E B Tucker, Mr P A  ...  view the full minutes text for item 1789.

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

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

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

Those speaking in favour suggested:

·         that in order to earn the epithet of World Class Worcestershire and be truly "Open for Business" a  decent and comprehensive bus service was essential.  The current bus services and timetables were not fulfilling those ambitions.

·         the Council was not meeting its own strategic targets in relation to access to services such as health care.

·         the quality of life for people of the county was being impaired by rural isolation, increased urban congestion and lower air quality because the Council was not fulfilling promises made in policy documents.

·         lack of public transport was a risk to the Council's economic aspirations.

Those speaking against the Motion suggested that:

·         the Council was meeting its duties under the Transport Act 1985 and any other concerns were being picked up in LTP4, a draft of which would be available in the autumn.

·         officers were working hard with a range of operators and other transport providers to ensure any identified shortcomings in existing services were addressed.  However most services would be subject to commercial viability considerations.  Continuing and increasing pressures on the Council's budget had also to be taken into account.

·         despite the financial and other pressures faced by the Council both members and officers took very seriously the concerns expressed and registered by residents of the county.

On being put to the meeting the Motion was lost.

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 9 May 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.)

Twelve 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.  Two questions were promised written answers as the questioner was no longer present.

(All answers are enclosed with these Minutes.)

To consider the reports of the Audit and Governance Committee, the Pensions Committee, the Planning and Regulatory Committee and the Standards and Ethics Committee on decisions taken (white pages attached).

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

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

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

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