Agenda and minutes

The members had before them

A.    The Agenda papers (previously circulated);

B.    5 questions submitted to the Assistant Director for Legal and Governance (previously circulated); and

C.   The Minutes of the meeting held on 10 September 2020 (previously circulated).

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

Apologies for absence were received from Ms P Hill and Mrs R Vale.

Mr J H Smith declared an interest in item 7 (b) as his wife Mrs F Smith was proposed as Vice-Chairman of the Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee, and did not participate.

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 Assistant Director for Legal and Governance in writing or by e-mail indicating both the nature and content of their proposed participation no later than 9.00am on the Monday before the meeting (in this case 9 November 2020). Further details are available on the Council’s website. Enquiries can also be made through the telephone number/e-mail address listed below.

Mr M E Jenkins presented a petition relating to 20mph and traffic calming in Flag Meadow Walk and Shrubbery Avenue area, Worcester, on behalf of a constituent who was unable to attend the meeting.

Mr D Lavelle asked a question about the St. John’s Road scheme, Worcester.

Mr A Lyon asked a question about county-wide greenhouse gas emission reductions.

Dr J Birks asked a question about the Net Zero Carbon Plan.

Mr D Whiting asked a question about the Net Zero Carbon Plan.

Mr C Cooke asked a question about the County Council in Partnership with the Community on climate change.

The Chairman thanked all the public participants for their contribution and said they would receive a written response from the relevant Cabinet Member.

Ms P McCarthy had submitted a question about the Net Zero Carbon Plan but was unable to attend the meeting. Her question was not read out but the Chairman said that she would receive a written response from the relevant Cabinet Member.

To approve as a correct record and authorise the signing of the Minutes of the meeting held on 10 September 2020 (previously circulated electronically).

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting held on 10 September 2020 be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

To receive any announcements to be made by the Chairman.

Noted

To consider the annual report of the Hereford and Worcester Fire and Rescue Authority to be presented by Mr P A Tuthill, Vice-Chairman and to receive answers to any questions asked about this report. It is planned for the Chief Fire Officer to attend the meeting.

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

On behalf of the Council, the Chairman thanked Mr Travis for his contribution to the fire service over a number of years and wished him well on his imminent retirement.

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

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

b)    Report of Cabinet – Summary of decisions taken.

The Council had before it a detailed report on the Revenue and Capital Budget Monitoring - Month 4 (31 July) 2020/21.

The Leader introduced the report and moved the recommendation as set out in paragraph 1 of the report; this was seconded by Mr A I Hardman. The Leader commented that the capital programme was appraised during the financial year to ensure it reflected the correct allocations and the latest information. It was not a question of adding anything new to the capital programme.

RESOLVED that the updated capital programme as set out in Appendix 1 to the report be approved.

The Council had before it an update on the County Council's Covid Response and Recovery.

The Leader introduced the report and moved the recommendation as set out in paragraph 1 of the report; this was seconded by Mr A I Hardman. The Leader commented that it was proposed to increase the existing funding allocation for rail stations and economic activity around them from £5m to £20m. Cabinet would be responsible for determining how that funding would be subsequently deployed. This proposal would enhance the Council’s ability to take advantage of opportunities to grow the economy as the county emerged from the Covid 19 pandemic.

In the ensuing debate, the following points were made:

·         Was funding being sought for the flood prevention scheme on the Wribbenhall side of the River Severn at Bewdley? The Leader responded that funding for flood defence schemes, and in particular Bewdley, would be sought from the Getting Building Fund, in association with the LEP

·         It was requested that this funding pot be used to address the parking issues at Malvern Link Rail Station, given that there were plans to build flats on part of the private land currently used for parking. In addition, it was queried who had taken over responsibility for this area of work within the Council. The Leader responded that the aim of the additional funding at this stage was to ensure that there were sufficient resources to support the rail network. It was too early to comment on individual projects. He confirmed that the officer responsible for this area of work had now left the organisation but both Internal and external officer support would be available to support this work

·         The Leader undertook to provide details of the number of businesses that were closed in the current lockdown. He added that although this lockdown was different to the original lockdown, there would still be significant impact on local businesses. The Council would do everything it could to provide support to businesses in liaison with the LEP and local MPs

·         Would some of the temporary changes introduced in response to the Covid 19 pandemic become permanent? The Leader commented that there were some pre-existing economic changes that had been accelerated by the pandemic particularly in relation to retail, work/life balance, and the environment. This was reflected in the proposal to invest in the rail network to recognise different working patterns. It was important that Worcestershire benefitted from the positive changes whilst mitigating any negative impacts

·         It was important that bus travel was integrated into any proposals to improve the rail network. The Leader responded that the public should be able to access rail facilities through a number of different modes of transport including buses but that was a revenue rather than capital issue

·         Was this funding available for any other form of economic development? The Leader indicated that there were other sources of funding available in the capital programme totalling around £200m for the next generation of economic game-changers as well as other  ...  view the full minutes text for item 2224.

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

·         Use of Children’s Centre Buildings – Transfer of the Centre at Bewdley Primary School

·         A New Approach to Delivering Integrated Services for Adult Mental Health

·         Minerals and Waste Local Development Scheme

·         Resources Report – Revenue and Capital Budget Monitoring – Month 4 (31 July) 2020/21

·         A38 Bromsgrove Route Enhancement Programme

·         Reducing Congestion Update

·         Council provided Day Services for Adults with a Learning Disability

·         County Council Net Zero Carbon Plan

·         Update on COVID-19 Response and Recovery Including Economic Development.

To consider a report on:

a)    Political balance; and

b)    Chairmen and Vice-Chairmen of Member Bodies.

(a)   Political Balance

Following recent changes to Group membership the Council was required to review the political balance.  The changes were that the 2017 and Independent Alliance Groups had ceased, replaced by the Liberal Democrat and Independent and Green Alliance Groups respectively. As a result, a proposed revised allocation of seats on Committees which reflected the political composition of the Council, and which was compliant with the principles of political balance was proposed.

RESOLVED that the recalculation of political balance set out in Appendix 1 to the report be approved and the Assistant Director for Legal and Governance be required to give effect to it in accordance with the nominations from the respective Group leaders from time to time.

(b)      Chairmen and Vice-Chairmen of Member Bodies

The Council from time to time appointed Chairmen and Vice-Chairmen of member bodies to fill certain positions within its constitutional structures. As a result of recent changes to the political balance there were some vacancies in various chairmanships and vice-chairmanships of Scrutiny Panels and thus Lead Scrutiny Members. In addition, the Council was asked on an annual basis to agree the appointment of a Vice-Chairman of the Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee (HOSC) when the nomination of the District Councils had been made.

The Leader thanked Mrs F M Oborski for her work on the Children and Families Overview and Scrutiny Panel and welcomed Mr T A L Wells to his new role as Chairman of that Panel.

RESOLVED thatthe constitutional appointments as set out in Appendix 2 to the report be confirmed, including the appointment of the nominee of the District Council representative on the Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee (HOSC), Mrs Frances Smith, as Vice-Chairman of HOSC.

To receive the reports of the following Cabinet Members with Responsibility on current issues and proposed developments within their area of responsibility and to receive answers to any questions on their reports:

a)    Children and Families; and

b)    Education and Skills.

The Cabinet Member with Responsibility for Children and Families presented his report.

The Cabinet Member with Responsibility for Children and Families then answered a broad range of questions from members.

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

The Cabinet Member with Responsibility for Education and Skills presented his report.

The Cabinet Member with Responsibility for Education and Skills then answered a broad range of questions from members.

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

To receive the report of the Head of Assistant Director for Legal and Governance on any Notices of Motion received by him.

Councillors are asked to note that any Notices of Motion must be received by the Assistant Director for Legal and Governance no later than noon on 3 November 2020.

The Council had before it a Notice of Motion set out in the agenda papers standing in the names of Mr P Middlebrough, Mrs L C Hodgson, Mr R J Morris Mr P A Tuthill and Mr T Baker-Price.

The motion was moved by Mr P Middlebrough and seconded by Mr R J Morris who both spoke in favour of it, and Council agreed to deal with it on the day.

In the ensuing debate, the following points were raised:

·         The waterways of Worcestershire had had a positive impact on the mental health of local residents during the Covid 19 pandemic

·         The waterways of Worcestershire made a positive contribution to the county. This important role affected every Cabinet Member portfolio and must be reflected in all policies to enable the Council to achieve its corporate objectives. It was important to ensure that the arrangements for the governance of the waterways did not prevent the waterways becoming a key player in 21^st century Worcestershire

·         Greater prominence should be afforded to the county’s waterways to attract visitors to the county

·         The waterways of the county not only supported the leisure industry but also many other different local businesses and allowed the local economy to thrive

·         As part of LTP4, the Council was promoting the use of canal towpaths for walking and cycling

·         It should be noted that only two of the county’s watercourses were considered of an acceptable standard by the EA. The environment and biodiversity benefits of maintaining healthy rivers and watercourses were considerable. The Council and its local MPs should support the Sewage Inland Waterways Bill which aimed to make the utility companies more responsible for the discharge of untreated sewage into waterways at times of flood

·         The Cabinet Member for Environment commented that the Council worked closely with partner agencies including the Environment Agency and Severn Trent to maintain the county’s waterways. Work was taking place with Worcestershire Wildlife Trust to slow the flow of waterways and improve the quality of the water entering into the county’s rivers. Boats using the river had an important role in aerating the water and improving the quality of the water. The creation of the fish passes on the River Severn would also improve the quality of the water as a result of the natural feeding habits of the fish. Work was taking place with farmers to help improve farming practices to improve the health of waterways

·         The county’s waterways had a significant role in supporting the horticulture and agriculture sectors of the economy. There were also educational benefits for young people learning about the county’s waterways

·         In the future, the Council should place greater emphasis on the diversity and opportunities that the waterways brought to the county, not least to harness all aspects of water power which could help the Council reduce its carbon footprint.

RESOLVED “Worcestershire rivers and waterways make an important contribution to the vibrancy of the county.

•     They are important to the biodiversity of the county

•  ...  view the full minutes text for item 2229.

The Council had before it a Notice of Motion set out in the agenda papers standing in the names of Prof J W Raine, Mrs M A Rayner, Mr T A L Wells, Dr C Hotham and Mr M E Jenkins.

The motion was moved by Prof J W Raine and seconded by Dr C Hotham who both spoke in favour of it, and Council agreed to deal with it on the day.

Those in favour of the Motion made the following points:

·         There were limited means for opposition members to influence the Council agenda other than through questions and notices of motion. The introduction of time limits for the consideration of motions had further constrained this opportunity. At recent meetings, attempts by opposition members to raise motions had been thwarted by the filibustering tactics of the controlling group with repetitive, time-wasting and verbose contributions on non-controversial issues. It was disrespectful not just to opposite groups but also local residents, waiting for discussions on important issues. There was now some doubt as to whether the first come first served approach to submitting motions was appropriate or fair. It led to an unseemly race to submit motions as soon as possible in advance of the meeting.  It was therefore proposed that a system be implemented that would allow each group the opportunity to submit at least one motion at each Council meeting and to extend the time limit to 120 minutes 

·         The restrictions resulting from the pandemic had led to further erosion of practices and procedures with artificially imposed time limits being further reduced. At recent meetings, the motions put forward by the controlling group had been non-controversial yet took up a disproportionately large amount of the allocated time

·         It was important to have an inclusive system in place that allowed all members from all groups the opportunity to bring forward policy suggestions

·         Whilst acknowledging that council meetings should not be unnecessarily prolonged, the introduction of time limits on motions had stifled debate, led to a backlog of motions that lost their immediacy, benefited the group that submitted their motion first and led to important subjects not being debated. The time limits on motions should be discussed and agreed by group leaders prior to formal ratification at the first meeting of Council after the elections

·         It had never been suggested that motions were the property of the opposition groups but there were plenty of other ways for members to celebrate aspects of the county. The consideration of issues that impacted policy decisions would be a better use of this time.

Those against the Motion made the following points:

·         The Cabinet Member for Education and Skills commented that the Council’s constitution had been amended by Council in May 2018 so that motions would be considered on a first come first served basis for a maximum period of 90 minutes. It would be inappropriate to amend the constitution at this stage of the life of the Council and in such a piecemeal way.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 2230.

There was insufficient time to consider this motion within the allocated 60-minute time limit for the consideration of Notices of Motion.

There was insufficient time to consider this motion within the allocated 60-minute time limit for the consideration of Notices of Motion.

To receive answers to any questions asked by Councillors.

(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 Assistant Director for Legal and Governance by noon on 3 November 2020 or

·         If it relates to urgent business, the Assistant Director for Legal and Governance is notified at least half an hour before the start of the meeting.)

Five questions had been received by the Assistant Director for Legal and Governance and had been circulated in advance of the meeting. The answers to all the questions are attached in the Appendix.

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

a)    Audit and Governance Committee;

b)    Pensions Committee;

c)    Planning and Regulatory Committee; and

d)    Standards and Ethics Committee.

The Chairman of the Committee introduced the report and commented that the Council’s Statement of Accounts had now been signed off by the external auditor with an unqualified audit opinion. This Council’s accounts had been the 4^th set of Accounts to be signed off in the country, well ahead of the statutory deadline on 30 November. He recognised the hard work and dedication of the members of the finance team over the last 3-4 years to get the Accounts to this point which was a considerable achievement.

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

The Chairman of the Committee introduced the report and commented that he was pleased to report that the Funding level of the Pension Fund had reached nearly 90%. This was a return to the pre-Covid funding level as in March 2020. He drew Council’s attention to the work being undertaken with respect to Environment Social and Governance and climate change, the outcome of which would be reported to the Committee early next year. The Pension Fund Statement of Accounts had been signed off by the external auditor with an unqualified opinion.

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

The Chairman of the Committee introduced the report and thanked Dr C Hotham and Mrs P Agar for their contribution to the work of the Planning and Regulatory Committee. He welcomed Mrs F M Oborski to the membership of the Committee.

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

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