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 14 January 2021 (previously circulated).

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

Apologies were received from Ms R L Dent and Mr R P Tomlinson.

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, 15 February 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 E Kimberley asked a question on behalf of Mr P Bladon about officer covid vaccination.

Ms R Wormington asked a question about the appointment of a climate change officer.

Mr C Cooke asked questions about remedies for traffic congestion.

Mr A Spencer asked a question about climate change.

Dr M Marshall asked a question about Roadside Verge Nature Reserves.

Dr J Birks asked a question about cycling and the Council’s transport policy.

The Chairman thanked all the public participants for their contribution and said they 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 14 January 2021 (previously circulated electronically).

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting held on 14 January 2021 be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

To receive any announcements to be made by the Chairman.

Noted.

A Minute’s silence was held in memory of former county councillor Mr Peter Pinfield who had sadly passed away.

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 2021/22 Draft Budget and Medium-Term Financial Plan Update 2022-24, which Cabinet had considered on 30 January 2020 and which the Leader of the Council and the Cabinet were recommending for adoption by the Council.

All Councillors had received or had access to the full report and Appendices considered by the Cabinet on 4 February 2020.

The Leader of the Council 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 thanked all those involved in producing the budget over a short period of time. This budget built on the sound financial base maintained throughout the last financial year whereby even in the face of a serious and sustained health emergency and despite the issues associated with the pandemic, a small underspend at the end of year outturn had been predicted. The Council had also set aside additional expenditure of £80m which had been matched by Government Grant to do whatever was needed to proactively respond to issues associated with the Covid pandemic. The net budget of £350.2m had been set against the back-drop of rising income, albeit not as fast as expected due to the impact of the pandemic on the Council Tax base, and continued adult and social care pressures.

The Leader added that the budget sought to do three key things. Firstly, it aimed to protect the most vulnerable members of society providing further resources for demand-led Adult Social Care (a rise of £11m) and Children’s Social Care (a rise of £7.7m). This was on top of previous budget increases and now accounted for 70% of the overall budget.

Secondly, investment in facilities that the public had identified as of most need including tacking congestion, roads and pavement improvements and public transport. This year’s Viewpoint Survey had also identified flood defence and access to the countryside as key issues for the Council to address. It was therefore proposed to continue with the £10m cutting congestion programme to benefit Kidderminster, Bromsgrove, Evesham and the A38 junction at Upton, continue the £200k investment in bus services and invest a further £6m to improve roads and £4m on pavements which would provide a high quality road network for all users. A further £2.5m would be provided for flood mitigation and highways drainage and £500k for the Bewdley flood defence scheme. £2.5m would be invested in LED street lighting. 150k trees would be planted over the next five years. The capital budget for public rights of way and access to the countryside would be more than doubled with £100k set aside for maintenance and revenue.

Thirdly, the budget sought to support recovery, working with the LEP, Midlands Connect and district councils. It sought to replenish the Open for Business reserves, support the roll out of Superfast Broadband, build on the success of Malvern Hills Science Park and Worcester Six development as part of the next generation  ...  view the full minutes text for item 2259.

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

·         Annual Update to the School Organisation Plan and Recommendation for Provision in Worcester

·         School Admission Arrangements for Community and Voluntary Controlled Schools for 2022/23, Co-ordinated Admission Schemes 2022/23 and Published Admission Number Changes for 2022/23

·         A Review of Day Opportunities for Adults with Learning Disabilities

·         Scrutiny Report: The Council’s Energy Purchasing Arrangements

·         Corporate Landlord and Facilities Management Delivery Model.

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.

The Cabinet Member with Responsibility for Highways presented his report to Council which covered various topics.

The Cabinet Member with Responsibility for Highways answered a broad range of questions from members.

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

To receive the report of the 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 9 February 2021.

The Council had before it a Notice of Motion set out in the agenda papers standing in the names of Mr A D Kent, Mr J A D O’Donnell, Mr S J Mackay, Mrs L C Hodgson, Mr J H Smith, Mr R J Morris, Mrs K J May and Dr A J Hopkins.

The motion was moved by Mr A D Kent and seconded by Mr J A D O’Donnell 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:

·         Significant progress had been made over a number of year so that currently 97.3% of residents and 90% of businesses had access to Superfast Broadband. The Council’s foresight had meant that many residents in Worcestershire had been able to work from home during the pandemic. However this should not be the extent of the Council’s ambition and with the support of the Government, the aspiration should be for every household to have a gigabyte connection speed

·         Broadband connectivity impacted on all residents in the county. In particular, the impact on home-schooling, home-teaching, doctors’ appointments, entertainment, the democratic process and the social interaction could not be under-estimated during this pandemic. The strive for improvement meant that the Council was looking forward in terms of how technology could improve people’s lives in the future

·         Although the introduction of Superfast Broadband was welcomed, there was a significant number of families who could not afford it or did not have the necessary equipment and this was impacting on the education of vulnerable children

·         A lot of good work had taken place to provide support to schools and children to access Superfast Broadband as well as for Council members and staff

·         Superfast broadband was vital for families with multiple users within the family home

·         Members of the Council had a leadership role in providing support to local residents through the Superfast Broadband project and members were encouraged to look at gov.uk as a means of providing support for community-led projects

·         The Cabinet Member for Infrastructure and Economy commented that he would ensure that a full report was brought to Council in the near future on Superfast Broadband. There were many ways to achieve the target speed of one gigabyte whether through the gap funded projects, the gigabyte vouchers or commercial developments. This Council had targeted support at local businesses as well as residents. £2.7m had been spent on 3k premises over the last 18 months. Grants had been made available to residents and businesses. The Council was one of the top five councils in the country for its performance in this area. Another £1m was committed in the next financial year. There were difficulties but the Council was fully committed to supporting the project working with the Government and commercial partners. He thanked members and officers for their contribution

·         Although there remained a small number of outlying areas where coverage was limited, the overall response to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 2262.

The Council had before it a Notice of Motion set out in the agenda papers standing in the names of Mr R C Lunn, Ms C M Stalker, Ms P Agar, Mr L C R Mallett, Mr P Denham and Mr R Udall.

The motion was moved by Mr P Denham and seconded by Mr R C Lunn 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:

·         The bus network was a vital service for isolated residents without access to cars. Bus services made a vital contribution to the economy and climate change. The reduction in Government funding over a number of years had resulted in a patchwork service provision. Increased funding and better co-ordination was necessary and this could be achieved by applying to Government to introduce a franchising model in Worcestershire. This would allow the Council to provide a quality comprehensive service in the county. The franchising model had proved successful in London and would allow the Council to dictate the quality and standard of the service including timetables, ticketing arrangements, types of buses used and information availability. It would allow a more strategic approach focusing services where they were most needed rather than where the best commercial opportunity was

·         The current bus service provision in Worcestershire was fragmented and failing. The Franchising model would provide better value for money with the Council rather than the operator receiving direct funding from the Government

·         Bus services should be available to local residents to get to work and  link to with train services

·         The benefits of deregulation had not materialised as bus services were expensive, slow and unreliable. There was poor coverage and a lack of competition. The Council had been subsidising private bus companies whilst having little control over their actions. Jersey had introduced a franchising model which had improved services, increased customer satisfaction and reduced subsidy costs. Their approach proved that franchising model could work outside big cities and was worth pursuing with the Government

·         The level of bus patronage had a significant effect on the council’s carbon footprint. There was a high level of customer dissatisfaction with the level of bus service provision. At least the bus franchising model was an attempt to solve this problem

·         If bus service provision was made affordable then bus patronage would increase. Buses in Worcestershire were too expensive, too infrequent and did not take people where they wanted to go.

Those against the motion made the following points:

·         It was impossible to consider that bus provision could be made available to everyone. There were very few examples where public sector provision was better than private sector provision. If service provision was poor, it was a result of low demand. The Major of London had requested a 9% increase in Council Tax to help subsidise the bus franchise model in London

·         The Cabinet Member for Highways commented that the Passenger Transport Strategy included proposals  ...  view the full minutes text for item 2263.

The Council had before it a Notice of Motion set out in the agenda papers standing in the names of Mr R C Lunn, Ms C M Stalker, Ms P Agar, Mr P M McDonald, Mr L C R Mallett, Mr P Denham and Mr R Udall.

The motion was moved by Mr R C Lunn and seconded by Ms P Agar who both spoke in favour of it, and Council agreed to deal with it on the day.

The following amendment had been proposed and was accepted as an alteration by the mover and seconder of the motion which therefore became the

substantive motion:

“Mindful of this Council’s commitment to the Armed Services Covenant Partnership, we call upon the Council to make their Armed Forces Champions and lead officers aware of the difficulties experienced by Commonwealth veterans and ensure that those who are currently experiencing problems, whether financial or immigration difficulties, are not disadvantaged whilst their applications are ongoing.

We welcome the Commonwealth Visa Fees Campaign being organised by the British Legion and support the Armed Forces Bill going through Parliament. Through the Armed Forces Partnership there is support for all Commonwealth veterans who have served a minimum of 4 years to be granted the automatic, free of charge right to remain in the UK and that any veteran who completes 12 years of service to be automatically given British Citizenship.

We call upon our Armed Forces Champions to lobby their MPs to ask that they continue to press the government for a change in the legislation that affects those who have served diligently and honourably for this Country.”

In the ensuing debate, the following points were made:

·         This motion was concerned with Commonwealth armed forces veterans who had not been properly advised when they left the service. They faced costs of approximately £2k per family member to apply for indefinite leave to remain the UK and did not receive any financial assistance. Approximately 500 veterans per annum were faced with this challenge. This Council was committed to the Armed Forces Covenant and therefore supporting veterans’ rights. The legislation needed to be amended to ensure that veterans were treated fairly

·         These veterans had given a lot to the country with consequences for the physical and mental health. There was therefore a morale principle to provide an automatic right to remain in the UK free of charge

·         The armed forces relied on the support of Commonwealth citizens serving alongside UK servicemen/women to achieve its targets

·         It was important that reference in the motion was made to the British Legion campaign and the Armed Forces Bill. Partnership working with a number of different agencies was key to supporting the rights of veterans. The Armed Forces Champion could play a major role in the lobbying process and enable a speedy response

·         The county’s Armed Forces Champions had already worked well together to achieve success particularly in relation to housing policy and mental health support for veterans

·         The Cabinet Member with Responsibility for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 2264.

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 9 February 2021 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 and the Chairman agrees the matter is urgent’.)

Four 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)    Pensions Committee;

b)    Planning and Regulatory Committee; and

c)    Standards and Ethics Committee

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 commented that as part of the consideration of the application for the proposed roundabout at A38 / A4104 junction, the Committee agreed to add a condition to establish a community liaison group which would help inform the local community through the construction phase.

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

The Chairman of the Committee introduced the report and reported that the Council had received 9 formal complaints in 2018.

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