Agenda and minutes

The Members had before them:

A.         The Agenda papers (previously circulated).

B.         16 questions submitted to the Head of Legal and Democratic Services (previously circulated).

C.        The Minutes of the Council held on 15 September 2016 (previously circulated electronically).

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 C J Bloore, Mr S J M Clee, Mr W P Gretton, Mr S R Peters, Prof J W Raine and Mr R P Tomlinson.

Interests were declared by:

Mr L C R Mallett - declared a DPI in respect of Agenda item 8, Notice of Motion 2 as he worked for a Charity involved in this area and would withdraw for that Item.

Mr A C Roberts - declared an interest in Agenda item 10, Question 8 as his sister-in-law participated in 'Trade Nepal' that made use of County Hall.

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

Four people participated during this part of the meeting.

Dr Roy Richardson's representative read a statement about the effects of Brexit and the work local business leaders and the County Council could do to mitigate the negative effects when the UK left the European Union.

Mr Steve Williams presented a petition about the parking restrictions on Foregate Street adjacent to the City Museum and Art Gallery and a request to revise waiting times from 45 minutes to 90 minutes.

Mrs Jane Moorhouse presented a petition (in the form of individual letters) from residents of the Arboretum area of Worcester requesting that the area be allocated a residents parking scheme.

Ms Nicki Laight asked a question about the Musketts Way pedestrian footbridge in Redditch.

To approve as a correct record and authorise the signing of the Minutes of the meeting held on 15 September 2016 (circulated previously electronically).

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting held on 15 September 2016 be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

To receive any announcements to be made by the Chairman.

The Chairman drew members' attention to the printed announcements and also made reference to the achievement of Ms Rochelle Clarke, a Worcester Valkyries Rugby Team player, in being one of the most capped England players.  The Chairman promised to write with the Council's congratulations.

An opportunity for councillors to ask questions of the Police and Crime Commissioner about his Safer West Mercia Plan. It is planned that the Chief Constable will also attend this meeting.

The Chairman welcomed Mr John Campion, the West Mercia Police and Crime Commissioner to the meeting.  The Chairman also welcomed and introduced Mr Anthony Bangham, the Chief Constable of West Mercia Police, to the meeting.

Both the Police and Crime Commissioner and the Chief Constable gave a brief presentation of their respective roles, their vision for the future and the current state of policing in Worcestershire.  The Police and Crime Commissioner and the Chief Constable then answered a wide range of questions posed by members.

The Chairman thanked Mr Campion and Mr Bangham for their attendance.

To consider the annual report of the Hereford and Worcester Fire & Rescue Authority (red pages) and to receive any answers to any questions asked about this report from the Chairman of the Authority. It is planned that the Chief Fire Officer will also attend this meeting to answer any questions on operational matters.

The Chairman welcomed Mr Nathan Travis, the Chief Fire Officer, to the meeting.  The Chairman of the Hereford and Worcester Fire and Rescue Authority, Mr D W Prodger, presented his report to the Council and he and Mr Travis answered questions asked by members of the Council.

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 'refresh' of the Corporate Plan and a commentary of the revisions and updates.  All members had also received a copy of the draft Plan.

Members spoke in favour of adopting the refreshed Plan and the priorities contained therein.  It was emphasised that the Plan was to provide strategic vision, not detailed implementation plans. Other members raised various criticisms of the process, the Council's direction of travel and of the draft Plan itself. 

During the course of debate it was moved as an amendment and seconded that:

"The Plan includes reference to the end of Austerity and improvement of the lifestyles of its residents and the economy of the county."

Following debate of this amendment it was put to the meeting and on a named vote was lost. 

Those voting in favour of the amendment:

Ms P Agar, Mr J Baker, Mr P Denham, Mr A Fry, Ms P A Hill, Mr L C R Mallett, Mr P M McDonald, Mr R M Udall, Mr G J Vickery. (9)

Those voting against the amendment:

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 P J Bridle, Mr S C Cross, Mrs P E Davey, Ms L R Duffy, Mrs E A Eyre, Mr S E Geraghty, Mrs J L M A Griffiths, Mr P Grove, Mr A I Hardman, Mr M J Hart, Mrs A T Hingley, Mrs L C Hodgson, Mr C G Holt, Mr I Hopwood, Mr A P Miller, Mr T A Muir, Dr K A Pollock, Mr D W Prodger, Mr A C Roberts, Mr J H Smith, Mr C B Taylor, Mr J W R Thomas and Mr G C  Yarranton. (30)

Abstained - Mrs S Askin, Mr M E Jenkins, Ms R E Jenkins, Mrs F M Oborski, Mr R J Sutton and Mrs E B Tucker. (6)

The Council then debated the substantive motion and

RESOLVED that the refreshed Corporate Plan - 'Shaping Worcestershire's Future (2017-2022) be approved and adopted from 1 January 2017.

The Council had before it a report which recommended the addition of £0.7m to  the Energy Efficiency Spend to Save Fund following the success of earlier elements of the strategy.  Members spoke generally in favour of the recommended course of action.

RESOLVED that the Energy Efficiency Spend to Save Fund increase to the Capital Programme be approved and the capital budget cash limits be updated accordingly.

The Council had before it a report which recommended the addition of £2m to the Capital Programme for Phase 2 of the development of in-house Post-16 Supported Living Accommodation and residential facilities within Children's Services.  Members were supportive of the report and recommendation before the Council.

The Cabinet Member with Responsibility for Children and Families promised a written response to the local member on why the Pershore Short Breaks Unit was included in the heading to one of the paragraphs but not in the subsequent text.

RESOLVED that the addition of £2m to the Capital Programme for Phase 2 of the development of in-house Post-16 Supported Living Accommodation and residential facilities within Children's Services be approved to be funded by revenue savings from the projects.

The Council had before it a report on the funding for the replacement of the Eastham Bridge near Tenbury Wells which has collapsed earlier in the year.  An addition to the Council's Capital Programme had been recommended.

A debate ensued during which the following principal points were made:

·         the timing of the scheme

·         the cost of the scheme and the extent of works required

·         comparative costs of other bridge works.

RESOLVED that the addition to the Capital Programme of the Eastham Bridge scheme be approved and that the capital cash limits be updated accordingly.

The Council had before it a report setting out the case to acquire the Wildwood Office in Worcester.  The report contained details of the current leasehold arrangements, financial and non-financial benefits and the legal, financial and human resources implications.  Members of the Council had also been sent Appendix 4 to the report which was a detailed financial appraisal of the proposal which because of the sensitive commercial information contained in it had been classified as 'Exempt Information'.  During the course of the debate members were reassured that the proposal would only proceed if it was contained within the financial envelope described and provided value for money for the County Council.

RESOLVED that the addition to the Capital Programme of the scheme to acquire Wildwood Office, Worcester as set out in the exempt finance report at Appendix 4 to the report be approved and the capital cash limits be updated accordingly in due course to reflect the actual cost of acquisition.

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

·         Equality in Schools - Notice of Motion

·         Council policy on responding to Change of Age Range requests from Community Maintained Schools or Change of Age requests from other types of school

·         West Midlands Rail Devolution

·         Worcestershire Local Aggregates Assessment

·         Winter Service Policy 2016

·         Resources Report

-        Revenue Budget Monitoring 2016/17 - Outturn Forecast as at 31 August 2016

-        Future Fit Programme Update

-        Capital Programme Budget Monitoring - 2016/17 Forecast

-        100% Business Rates Retention - Consultation

-        Fair Funding Review:  Call for Evidence on Needs and Redistribution.  Discussion paper

-        Annual Statutory Financial Statements 2015/16.

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, 3 November 2016.

The Council had before it a Notice of Motion standing in the names of Mr R M Udall, Mr P M McDonald, Mr G J Vickery, Mr P Denham, Mr L C R Mallett and Ms P Agar.

"Council is concerned about the cost of footway crossings (dropped kerbs) and that our contractor, Ringway is the only approved provider for such work. Council calls upon the Cabinet Member with Responsibility to consider ways he can open up the market to greater competition, with an approved list of contractors and mechanisms where consumers can have options of different payment methods."

The Notice of Motion was moved by Mr R M Udall and seconded by Mr R C Lunn who both spoke in favour of it.

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

A debate ensued during which the following principal points were made:

·         the monopoly position of Ringway acted against the interests of residents

·         high costs charged by Ringway for dropped kerbs meant that residents were acting illegally in parking on their own property but driving over ordinary unmodified kerbs

·         real hardship was being caused by delays and high prices and that hardship was being felt by the most vulnerable in the community

·         a list of approved contractors would serve the interest of both the Council and residents.

Other members suggested:

·         that alternative provision had been tried in the past and had not proved workable in terms of quality or cost

·         payment by instalments was not a viable way forward and if residents needed a dropped kerb they needed to plan the expenditure in advance

·         the suggestion being made would lead to higher costs due to the administration and bureaucracy involved.

On a named vote the Motion was lost.

Those voting in favour:

Ms P Agar, Mrs S Askin, Mr J Baker, 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 L C R Mallett, Mr P M McDonald, Mrs F M Oborski, Mrs E B Tucker, Mr R M Udall and Mr G J Vickery. (16)

Those voting against:

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, Mrs P E Davey, Mr N Desmond, Mrs E A Eyre, Ms L R Duffy, 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 C G Holt, Mr I Hopwood, Mr A P Miller, Mr T A Muir, Dr K A Pollock, Mr D W Prodger, Mr A C Roberts, Mr J H Smith, Mr C B Taylor and Mr P A Tuthill, (27)

The Council had before it a Notice of Motion standing in the names of Mr G J Vickery, Mr P M McDonald, Mr P Denham, Mr R M Udall, Mr A Fry and Ms P Agar:

" "Our services are designed to give children and young people the best possible start in life" – "Shaping Worcestershire's Future" page 6.

"We are fully committed to child protection and do everything we can to keep children safe and stable" – "Shaping Worcestershire's Future" page 7.

There will be "changes to the current job plans for Health Visitors, staff skill mix, a reduced number of clinics and home visits. Health promotion and preventions will be delivered through a targeted approach." – Integrated Public Health Nursing Service Review Paper from Worcestershire Health & Care Trust, October 2016.

Worcestershire County Council's Public Health role is to provide and ensure a universal service of preventative health care, to benefit the long-term wellbeing of the population and reduce the costly burden on the NHS and Council of acute, mental and social health and care. We therefore call upon the Cabinet Member with Responsibility to ensure that identification of needs is provided through an undifferentiated and universal strategy which encourages the uptake of needed services and appropriate health and parenting information, and creates opportunities for parents who may otherwise have remained unaware of, or unwilling to engage in, such provision."

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

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

A debate ensued during which the following principal points were made.  Those speaking in favour:

·         stressed that certain services should be universal and the areas highlighted in the Motion should be protected

·         highlighted these were special service areas and formed an integral part of the Council's health promotion ambitions

·         suggested some targeting of services might be considered legitimate but in this area it would be ill advised and short-sighted

·         insisted that the Council should continue to provide the most vulnerable with the best start in life and ensure long term success in other areas notably education.

Other members commented:

·         that statutory health checks would still be carried out at the appropriate intervals

·         if members chose to maintain services across a wide spectrum of provision at some point it would be necessary to identify where additional resources could be obtained.  This was the dilemma - services in one area, reductions in others and those speaking in favour of the Motion had no answer to it

·         the Motion was a simplistic attempt to reallocate resources from an already over committed budget.

On being put to the Meeting the Motion was lost.

The Council had before it a Notice of Motion standing in the names of Mr P M McDonald, Mr R M Udall, Mr G J Vickery, Mr L C R Mallett and Ms P Agar:

"We call upon the Cabinet Member with Responsibility to support the introduction of a Living Wage to all directly-engaged staff and

(a)          to undertake investigations into the cost of fully implementing the Living Wage including the number of staff currently paid below the Living Wage, by how much and in what roles they work

(b)          will adopt a policy of supporting the Living Wage in procurement on a case-by-case basis

(c)          in addition will seek accreditation as a Living Wage Employer through the Living Wage Foundation."

The Motion was moved by Mr P M McDonald and seconded by Mr R M Udall 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:

·         suggested that simple justice dictated that a fair day's work deserved a fair day's pay

·         that the County Council should be seen as a leader in the county and set an example for other employers to follow

·         that being a low-pay employer was not compatible with the ambition to be a World Class local authority and county and would mean the Council could not attract or retain the highest calibre of staff.

Those speaking against the Motion:

·         said there was confusion between the minimum wage and the living wage and that the Council's aspirations had always been clear

·         the Council had to be prudent with Council Tax payers' money and would not be thanked for paying above market rates or local conditions

·         the suggestion had been rejected before because it eroded the differentials of higher paid staff

·         the movers of the Motion needed to have regard to the implications of higher spending and identify sources of funding.

On a named vote the Motion was lost.

Those voting in favour:

Ms P Agar, Mrs S Askin, Mr P Denham, Ms P A Hill, Mr M E Jenkins, Mr R C Lunn, Mr L C R Mallett, Mr P M McDonald, Mrs F M Oborski, Mrs E B Tucker, Mr R M Udall and Mr G J  Vickery. (12)

Those voting against:

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, 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 C G Holt, Mr I Hopwood, Mr A P Miller, Mr T A Muir, Dr K A Pollock, Mr D W Prodger, Mr A C Roberts, Mr J H Smith, Mr C B Taylor and Mr P A Tuthill, (26)

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

"Issues surrounding parking are frequently raised by residents, particularly those in urban areas with limited off-road parking where residents are in competition with commuters. Following a visit to the Arboretum in Worcester to see the problems that this area faces, the Cabinet Member with Responsibility for Highways, Marcus Hart, said that he intends over the coming year to look again at the whole of the Council’s resident parking scheme policy and potentially review it.

In order to assist the Cabinet Member to reach the best outcome of any review, we call for a cross-party scrutiny task group to be set up that looks at all aspects of resident parking, for instance by considering examples of resident parking schemes from elsewhere in the country and also whether a one-size-fits-all policy can adequately address the varying nature of parking problems throughout the county

The results of this scrutiny can then inform the Cabinet Member in the formation of a new and improved resident parking policy."

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

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

An amendment was then suggested by Mr M J Hart and adopted as an alteration to the Motion by the Mover and Seconder.

The motion as altered received general support and the Council RESOLVED:

"Council notes that:

"Issues surrounding parking are frequently raised by residents, particularly those in urban areas with limited off-road parking where residents are in competition with commuters.  Following a visit to the Arboretum in Worcester to see the problems that this area faces, the Cabinet Member with Responsibility for Highways, Marcus Hart, said that he intends over the coming year to look again at the whole of the Council's resident parking scheme policy and potentially review it.

Council agrees that:

In order to assist the Cabinet Member to reach the best outcome of any review, we call for a Member Advisory Group (MAG) to be set up that looks at all aspects of resident parking, for instance by considering examples of resident parking schemes for elsewhere in the country and also whether a one-size fits-all policy can adequately address the varying nature of the parking problems throughout the county.

The results of this MAG can then inform the Cabinet Member in the formation on any future resident parking policy."

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

"This Council strongly supports initiatives to develop the skills and qualifications of its young people as part of the general drive to improve the jobs and salary levels available to them and the planned growth of the economy of the county.

We are concerned that our current policy for post 16-19 transport is limited to full-time students in Further Education and only to the nearest school or college irrespective of whether it provides the appropriate course for the student concerned.

We ask the Cabinet to reconsider this policy which works against our overall objectives."

The Notice of 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 consider and deal with the Motion on the day.

A debate ensued during which the following principal points were made.  Those speaking in favour:

·         the Council's current transport policy did not give all young people an equal chance of achieving their full potential

·         the Council's current transport policy worked against some of the Council's other aspirations relating to education, training and learning opportunities

·         at a time when the Council was seeking to strengthen the county's economy, opportunities for young people should be enhanced not reduced.

Those speaking against the Motion:

·         drew attention to drain on resources posed by home to school transport and education transport generally

·         posed the argument that for every increase in service provision in one area there had to be a compensating reduction in another area.  The mover and seconder of the Motion were asked from which budget heading the resources would be taken

·         that some institutions operated a bursary scheme to help students with travel costs and there had to be some onus on students to help themselves.

On being put to the meeting the Motion was lost.

To receive the report of the Cabinet Member with Responsibility for Highways 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 Highways presented his report which covered a number of overarching issues:

·         Highways Budget

·         Depots

·         Fixing roads

·         Pavements/footways

·         Winter maintenance

·         Eastham Bridge

·         'Driving Home'

·         Parish Lengthmans Scheme

·         Street Lighting

·         Hoobrook Link Road (Silverwoods Way)

·         Public transport

·         Transport technology

·         Community transport

·         Highways liaison

·         Traffic Regulation Orders

·         Small Works Scheme

·         Bus stop improvements

·         Improvements for the mobility impaired.

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

·         a clarification on the total budget for 'Driving Home'

·         request for a dedicated bus service for Silverwoods Way in Kidderminster

·         street lighting policy and the number of lights turned off at night as part of on-going economy measures

·         the nature, extent and funding for real-time bus service information systems

·         whether there were any plans to reconsider the amount of subsidy available for bus services

·         the scope and future operations of Fleet Services

·         revision to the Highway Liaison Officer role

·         the role and functions of Highways Forums.

Other actions were promised as follows:

·         to clarify whether zig zag road markings near school entrances were covered by Traffic Regulation Orders or not

·         to clarify what offences are involved in obstructing or driving over dropped kerbs and whether this applies to both ingress and egress

·         in relation to paragraph 51 of the report - why had it taken seven years to complete the closure of the Brickfields Walk crossing from Astwood Road to King George V playing fields?

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 7 November 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.)

Sixteen questions had been received by the Head of Legal and Democratic Services and had been circulated before the meeting.  Nine were asked at the meeting during the thirty minutes allocated.  (All answers are enclosed with these Minutes.)

To consider the reports of the Pensions Committee and the Planning and Regulatory Committee (white pages - attached) which summarise the decisions taken by those bodies.

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.