Agenda and minutes

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 S C Cross, Mr A Fry, Mrs J L M A Griffiths, Mrs F M Oborski, Mrs S R Peters and Prof. J Raine.

Five declarations of interest were made:

Mr R W Banks - Agenda item 5(b) Governor of Evesham High School

Mr W P Gretton - Agenda item 7, Notice of Motion 1 (School Provision in Redditch) - Member of the Governing Body of St. Augustine's RC High School, Redditch.

Mr R C Lunn - Agenda item 7, Notice of Motion 1 (School Provision in Redditch) - Member of Webheath First School Academy.

Mr A C Roberts - Agenda item 5 - Trustee of the St. Richards Hospice Board.

Mr J H Smith - Agenda item 5(b) Governor of Evesham High School.

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 Director of Resources 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, 2 July 2014). Further details are available on the Council’s website. Enquiries can also be made through the telephone number/e-mail address listed below.

There was no public participation at this meeting.

To approve as a correct record and authorise the signing of the Minutes of the meeting held on 15 May 2014 (previously circulated electronically).

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting held on 15 May 2014 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 to the printed announcements circulated and gave details of the contents.

To consider the reports of the Cabinet and to receive answers to any questions asked on those reports. Matters which require a decision by Council are on yellow pages. Matters upon which decisions have been taken by the Cabinet are on white pages.

The Council had before it a report which set out that £3,630,100 had been awarded under the Green Deal Communities Fund to run a solid wall insulation programme for rented homes in eligible communities.  The project would be run in partnership with District Councils and Act on Energy and was due for completion by 31 March 2015.

Mr P M McDonald queried the geographical distribution of the funding and was promised a written response by the Cabinet Member with Responsibility.

RESOLVED that the Council's capital and revenue cash limits be increased to accommodate the Green Deal Communities Fund allocation.

The Leader of the Council reported the following topics and answered the

questions in relation to a number of them:

·         Consultation on Public Transport Reductions

·         Scrutiny Report:  Commissioning

·         Scrutiny Report:  Apprenticeships

·         Update on Health and Adult Care Integration and the Future Lives Programme

·         The Commissioning of Construction-Related Design Services

·         Proposal to Merge Evesham High School and Simon de Montfort Middle School into a Single School

·         Resources Report

-      Provisional Financial Results for the year

       ending 31 March 2014

-      Proposed Earmarked Reserves, New Investments and General Balances

-      Future Fit Programme Update

-      Borrowing and Lending Transactions 2013/14

-      Funding for School Kitchens

-      Performance Review.    

To consider a report from the Head of Legal and Democratic Services on the allocation of politically balanced committee seats and an update to the Council's Procedural Standing Orders (Yellow pages).

The Council had before it a report on political balance.  The report set out that the Council was under a legal duty to ensure that the seats on its ordinary committees were allocated between the respective political Groups on the Council in accordance with the principles of political balance as far as reasonably practicable. 

These principles (in descending order) were that a majority group had a majority on each of the Council's ordinary committees; subject to that the overall number of seats allocated to each of the Groups reflected political balance; and finally subject to the above rules, and as far as was practicable that seats on individual committees reflected political balance between the Groups.

The recent by-election in Redditch Arrow Valley East following the resignation of UKIP Councillor Mr Martin Jenkins, had resulted in the election of Mr Peter Bridle, who had joined the UKIP group.  Accordingly, no change was triggered in the Council's seat allocation to UKIP which remained as it was for a Group of 2 members.

Mr Alan Amos had resigned from the Labour Group which had now reduced to 11 members.  The consequential political balance recalculations meant that the Labour Group were due to lose one committee seat in total.  It was suggested that this came from the Planning and Regulatory Committee where they were currently allocated 3 out of 13 seats, so that their allocation would become 2.  No other alterations to seat allocations were needed to reflect the change in total Group Membership of the Labour Group.

The report set out that Mr Amos had not joined another political Group, and now sat as an ungrouped independent member.   Accordingly, no other political Group had increased their size from the last political balance calculation and were not entitled to additional pro rata seats, including that to be vacated by Labour.

As the Council's legal duties of political balance in respect of seat allocation only applied in respect of political groups, Mr Amos had no legal entitlement to be allocated any committee seats.  It was open to the Council to allocate a seat to Mr Amos if it so chose as long as it otherwise met the principles of political balance - it was entirely discretionary.  It was open to Council to allocate the 'spare' seat vacated by the reduction in the Labour Group to Mr Amos if it so chose.  The report suggested that it was slightly preferable for the Planning and Regulatory Committee to remain with odd numbers for the purposes of decisive voting, but it was a matter for the Council whether to allocate its 13th seat to Mr Amos or reduce the size of that Committee by one to a total of 12.

Mr Amos had previously been the Labour Group nominee on the Planning and Regulatory Committee, and had been appointed by the Council as Vice-Chairman of that Committee.  Following his resignation from the Labour Group, he was replaced as a member on it, and the Vice-Chairmanship has been held  ...  view the full minutes text for item 1581.

The Council had before it a report on a proposal to change the Procedural Standing Orders to incorporate a provision relating to budget votes.

The report set out that the Local Authorities (Standing Orders) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2014 required the Standing Orders of Council to be amended.  They required the recording of the names and votes of Members in relation to Budget/Council Tax precept decisions vote at a meeting of the Council with a view to increasing transparency.

The Head of Legal and Democratic Services outlined that to reflect the Regulations being recommended that Council adopts a new Procedural Standing Order 24.3.3:

            'immediately after any vote on the budget calculations or precept is taken at a budget decision meeting of the Council there must be recorded in the Minutes of the proceedings of that meeting the names of the persons who cast the vote for the decision or against the decision or who abstained from voting'.

This provision would therefore apply to all future budget/precept decisions at February Council, including decisions on amendments.  It was likely that the easiest mechanism for recording names is through the usual named-vote process, but this was not strictly required if the names and votes could otherwise be recorded comprehensively.

RESOLVED that a new Procedural Standing Order in relation to Council Budget decisions as set out in the report be adopted and the Head of Legal and Democratic Services be authorised to amend the Constitution to reflect the new Regulations.

To receive the report of the Director of Resources 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 Director of Resourcesno later than noon on Thursday, 26 June 2014.

The Council had before it a Notice of Motion standing in the names of Ms P A Hill, Mr R C Lunn, Mr J Baker, Mr V J Vickery, Mr P Denham, Ms P Agar and Mr P M McDonald:

"It is our understanding that the Council expects head teachers and governing bodies of local Academies to ensure the needs of their local communities are considered when considering changes.

If this is the case can we ask that the Cabinet Member with Responsibility for Children and Families denounces the confusion, consternation and turmoil caused by the Tudor Grange Trust in Redditch and requests the Chief Executive of the said Trust to defer their consultation on changing its age range from 13-18 to 11-18 years and also she requests the Education Funding Agency to seek further clarification on the business case which can be provided to parents, governors and staff of those concerned schools in Redditch?"

The Motion was moved by Ms P A Hill and seconded by Mr R C Lunn who both spoke in favour of it.

The Council agreed to consider the Motion on the day.

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

·         the 3 tier system of education had served the Redditch area well for 40 years and the proposals to change this in an unco-ordinated manner risked the educational outcomes of a generation of school pupils

·         the consultation, which had now been temporarily postponed, was premature, rushed and tokenistic

·         that any school review had to be conducted in a measured, impartial and inclusive way and the current suggestions did not conform to this model of consultation. It was suggested that what was required was a totally independent review of school provision in the town.

Other members suggested that

·         most of the demands made by the Motion had already been met, making it redundant

·         there was much concern in the town, but the Cabinet Member with Responsibility had given assurances that the Council were responding in the correct way

·         that proposals had been deferred and this gave the Council an opportunity to engage appropriately in the forthcoming consultation process.

On a named vote the Motion was lost.

Those voting in favour were:  Ms P Agar, Mr A T Amos, Mrs S Askin, Mr J Baker, Mr C J Bloore, Mr P J Bridle, Mr P Denham, Ms P A Hill, Mr M E Jenkins, Ms R E Jenkins, Mr R C Lunn, Mr L C R Mallett, Mr P M McDonald, Mr J Parish, Mrs M A Rayner, Mr R J Sutton, Mr J W R Thomas, Mrs E B Tucker, Mr R M Udall, Mr G J Vickery and Mr T A L Wells (21)

Those voting against were:

Mr A A J Adams, Mr R C Adams, Mr R W Banks, Mr M L Bayliss, Mr A N Blagg, Mrs S L Blagg, Mr M H Broomfield, Mr J Campion, Mr S J M Clee, Mrs P E Davey, Mr N  ...  view the full minutes text for item 1583.

The Council had before it a Notice of Motion standing in the names of Mr L C R Mallett, Mr C J Bloore, Mr R M Udall, Mr P M McDonald, Ms P A Hill, Mr R C Lunn and Mr J Baker.

"Council notes the community concerns within Bromsgrove District in respect of transport infrastructure, in particular around the town.  Council notes recent submissions to Bromsgrove District Council from the Bromsgrove Society and other organisations as to the provision of a Western Link Road for the town.

Council requests that the Cabinet Member with Responsibility considers progressing a feasibility study into the costs, funding and benefits of the provision of a Western Link Road in Bromsgrove to relieve congestion in the town and underpin economic and population growth."

The Motion was moved by Mr L C R Mallett and seconded by Mr C J Bloore who both spoke in favour of it.

The Council agreed to consider the Motion on the day.

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

·         traffic flows in Bromsgrove were being constricted by the present insufficient road infrastructure and proposed building developments in the area would exacerbate this and have negative consequences for economic development, commuters using the town and future health and well-being of residents

·         that the Council needed to be forward looking to ensure the town was well served and the roads were fit for purpose

·         planning of infrastructure should be viewed in a holistic way and the County Council should be proactive in looking at both present and future needs.

Members also suggested that:

·         this was a matter for the local district plan which had covered the period to 2022

·         the County Council would be involved with these strategic planning issues, but this would be mainly driven by the District Council and its processes

·         the Council had to avoid a "one size fits all" solution to perceived

·         infrastructure shortfalls and work with the District Council to identify and promote long-term sustainable solutions to present problems and future provision.

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, Ms P A Hill, Ms R E Jenkins, Mr R C Lunn, Mr L C R Mallett, Mr P M McDonald, Mr J Parish, Mrs M A Rayner, Mrs E B Tucker, Mr R M Udall, Mr G J Vickery and Mr T A L Wells (16).

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 P J Bridle, Mr M H Broomfield, Mr J Campion, Mr S J M Clee, Mrs P E Davey, Mr N Desmond, Mrs L R Duffy, Mrs E A Eyre, Mr S E Geraghty, Mr W P Gretton, Mr P Grove, Mr A I Hardman, Mr M J Hart, Mrs  ...  view the full minutes text for item 1584.

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

"Council is extremely concerned about the decision to terminate the Park and Ride services from Perdiswell and Six Ways in September.  In particular, the Council is fearful that increased congestion will occur in Worcester's already heavily-congested streets.  We believe that the impact on the city's employers, employees, local residents, hospital workers, school children, students, users of health services, shoppers, potential tourists and other visitors will be harmful to both the city and county economies.

Council further notes with serious concern the decision to remove subsidy to bus routes in the city, believing that the impact of these service cuts on those dependent on public transport has been underestimated.

Council therefore proposes an urgent joint scrutiny review with Worcester City Council of the above decisions, and requests that the agreement of the City Council is sought to such a joint scrutiny."

The Motion was moved by Mr P Denham and seconded by Ms P Agar who both spoke in support of it.

The Council agreed to consider the Motion on the day.

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

·         it was suggested that Worcester was one of the most congested cities in England and would suffer from withdrawal of the Park and Ride Service

·         air pollution would increase and quality of life would decrease when these bus services were withdrawn

·         other areas of the country had successful park and ride services and members questioned why the concept could not be made to work in Worcester.  Apart from Park and Ride other services were being reduced and the city was in danger of being gridlocked with additional traffic

·         the timing of the City Council's reduction in car parking charges would compound the problems highlighted and do little to reduce on-street parking especially in residential areas

·         removal of Park and Ride and other services was a retrograde step and one which the Council should avoid as a community leader.

Other members spoke against the Motion:

·         Park and Ride was experimental.  The experiment had been given a fair trial but it had failed and the Council had to cut its losses and avoid spending any more public money in an unproductive way; money which could be focussed on other areas of provision

·         Congestion was unlikely to be on the scale suggested by the signatories of the Motion given how much the use of the Park and Ride facility had reduced over a number of years

·         reinstatement of the Park and Ride service would mean reductions to services elsewhere and members were invited to identify services in their own divisions which could be reduced to assist in retention of Worcester's Park and Ride facilities

·         members drew attention to the low priority given to public transport in Council surveys.  The Council were  ...  view the full minutes text for item 1585.

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

"Recent Cabinet and Scrutiny debates on the proposals to scrap the Park and Ride have referred to many towns and cities that have successful schemes.  For park and ride to be successful there has to be connection between the cost of car parking in the towns and the provision of Park and Ride.  It is apparent that this connection does not exist in Worcester, especially as the current City Council administration has already announced that they will be reducing car parking costs.

This Council asks that the County and City Council Cabinet Members responsible revisit the decision to scrap the Park and Ride schemes and work together with a political will to produce a joined-up policy that will promote their use.  This will reduce congestion - we are currently the third most traffic-congested city in the country - and avoid the waste of huge financial resources that have already been spent on existing and future Park and Ride schemes."

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

An amendment was proposed by the Labour Group in the following terms:  To replace last paragraph of the original Motion with:

"This Council therefore proposes an urgent scrutiny review with Worcester City Council of the above decisions, and requests that the agreement of the City Council is sought to such a joint scrutiny."

With the agreement of the mover and seconder, and those signatories of the Motion present, this proposed amendment was adopted as the substantive motion.

A point of order was raised under PSO 20.1 suggesting that consideration of Notice of Motion 3 (Minute 1585 above) meant that, as altered, Notice of Motion 4 was in fact a re-consideration of a Motion already disposed of.

The Head of Legal and Democratic Services advised that the effect of Notice of Motion 4 as it currently stood was indeed the same as Notice of Motion 3 - for there to be a joint scrutiny with the City Council on the closure of the Park and Ride services and in conflict with PSO 20.1 in its present state.

Before further consideration was given to whether Notice of Motion 4 be further altered, it was moved and seconded under PSO 19.11(e) that Council proceed to next business.  The Head of Legal and Democratic Services advised that this closure motion could only be put if the Chairman considered that the matter had been sufficiently discussed.  The Chairman so indicated and after the Mover's Right of Reply and on being put to the meeting Council RESOLVED to proceed to next business.

To receive the report of the Cabinet Member with Responsibility for Adult Social Care on current issues and proposed developments within her area of responsibility and to receive answers to any question on them (green pages).

The Cabinet Member with Responsibility for Adult Social Care presented her report which covered a number of overarching issues:

·         The Care Act

·         Planning for Increased Demand

·         Future Lives

·         Independent Living

·         Quality Assurance and Standards

·         Inspection Monitoring and Safeguarding

·         Staffing and Appointments.

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

·      Challenges under the Care Act and how the Council were responding to these and how the pressures would be addressed

·      Additional funding was being made available for Councils to meet additional calls on services under the Care Act.  This was thought to be insufficient and a question was asked how any additional costs were to be met

·         the role of Independent financial advisers and whether proper screening and checks were in place to ensure service users were given good, sound advice

·         Duty to prisoners to meet their needs - what was the Council doing in this area

·         Ensuring the needs of autistic adults were met

·         it was suggested that service users were having to use premium rate numbers for contacting service providers

·         Sickness rates within DASH and how these were being addressed.

The Chairman thanked the Cabinet Member with Responsibility for her 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 Director of Resources by noon on Monday 30 June 2014  or

·         if it relates to urgent business, the Director of Resources is notified at least half an hour before the start of the meeting).

Eleven questions had been received by the Director of Resources and had been circulated before the meeting.  All the questions were asked (or taken as read).  All answers are enclosed with these Minutes.

To consider the report of the Audit and Governance, Planning and Regulatory, and Standards and Ethics Committees (white pages - attached) which summarise the decisions taken by those Committees.

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

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