Agenda and minutes

The members had before them:

A.    The Agenda papers (previously circulated);

B.    4 questions submitted to the Assistant Director for Legal and Governance (previously circulated); and

C.   The Minutes of the meeting held on 16 February 2023 (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 Cllrs Adrian Hardman, and Luke Mallett.

Cllr Andy Fry declared an interest as an employee of a care company that undertook contracted work for the Council.

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

A Minute’s silence was held in memory of former county councillor Gordon Yarranton who had sadly passed away.

The outgoing Chairman described his year of office and thanked the Council and its officers for their support.

RESOLVED that Cllr Kyle Daisley be elected Chairman 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 Cllr Alan Amos was moved by Cllr Alastair Adams and seconded by Cllr Bob Brookes.

It was then proposed by Cllr Lynn Denham and seconded by Cllr Richard Udall that Cllr Andy Fry be appointed Vice-Chairman of the Council.

RESOLVED that Cllr Alan Amos be appointed Vice-Chairman to hold office until immediately after the election of a Chairman at the next Annual meeting of the Council.

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 working day before the meeting (in this case Wednesday, 17 May 2023). Further details are available on the Council’s website. Enquiries can also be made through the telephone number/e-mail address listed in this agenda and on the website.

Melissa Pointon asked a question concerning the reduction of emissions from city and town centres across the county.

Dawn Style asked a question concerning evidence of improvements being achieved by Worcestershire Children First for children/young people and families.

The Chairman thanked Melissa and Dawn 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 16 February 2023 (previously circulated electronically).

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting held on 16 February 2023 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 reports of the Cabinet and to receive answers to any questions asked on the report of Cabinet – Summary of decisions taken.

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

·         Children and Adolescent Mental Health Services Overview and Scrutiny Report

·         Household Support Fund

·         Worcestershire Children First (WCF) Business Plan.

To consider adopting a Councillor Code of Conduct.

Council considered the adoption of a Code of Conduct.

The Chairman of the Standards and Ethics Committee introduced the report and commented that the LGA Model Code of Conduct and various suggestions to augment that Code had been considered by the Committee. The Committee had been unanimous in its view, in line with many other councils, that the LGA Model Code of Conduct should be adopted in its entirety by the Council.

In the ensuing debate, concern was expressed about the lack of business being conducted by the Standards and Ethics Committee and the lack of authority granted to the Council to act against those councillors who had transgressed the Code of Conduct. The Chairman of the Standards and Ethics Committee responded that the general good behaviour of councillors accounted for the lack of Committee business.

RESOLVED that the draft Code of Conduct as set out as an Appendix to the report be adopted by Council.

To consider a report on a) Malvern Chase By-Election and Political Balance; and b) Chairmen and Vice-Chairmen of Member Bodies. (To follow)

(a) Malvern Chase By-Election and Political Balance

Council considered the outcome of the Malvern Chase By-election and its impact on political balance.

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

Council considered appointments of Chairmen and Vice-Chairmen to Member Bodies.

RESOLVED that Members be appointed to the Chairman and Vice-Chairman roles in accordance with Appendix 2 of the report.

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

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 Tuesday, 9 May.

The Council had before it a Notice of Motion set out in the agenda papers standing in the names of Cllr Mel Allcott, Cllr Richard Udall, Cllr Dan Boatright and Cllr Lynn Denham.

The motion was moved by Cllr Richard Udall and seconded by Cllr Dan Boatright, who both spoke in favour of it.

Those in favour of the motion commented:

·         Illegal traveller camps created fear, tensions and stress amongst local residents and left local councils with huge clear-up and security costs. There was a critical shortage of transit/temporary sites in the county despite the legal duty placed on the Council to provide them. The current protocol for the management of gypsy sites only provided for 21 days of deferred enforcement for illegal encampments. Evidence suggested that transit camps were needed and would be used by travellers thereby avoiding the cost of enforcement action. These legal transit camps would benefit travellers and be welcomed by local residents instead of unauthorised illegal camps. The Council had a responsibility as lead authority to work with district councils to make the necessary provision

·         Travellers in the local Pershore area had drawn attention to the lack of transit sites in the county. The addition of such sites would make a significant difference to them.

Those against the motion commented:

·         The Cabinet Member with Responsibility for Communities commented that there was not a critical shortage of transit/temporary sites in the county. The responsibility for the allocation of permanent or transient traveller sites rested with the local planning authority through the site allocations in their local plan and any concerns should be raised with them. The Council worked with partner agencies through the joint protocol for the management of unauthorised gypsy encampments to deal with illegal encampments when they occurred on land in the ownership of this Council

·         The Chairman of the Corporate and Communities Scrutiny Panel commented that the Panel had received a report in 2022 on gypsy sites. The report explained that the administration of the 21 days’ notice of deferred enforcement under the protocol for the management of unauthorised gypsy encampments had always been of secondary importance to the welfare needs of the gypsy/traveller community. The 21 days’ notice would only be enforced if the illegal encampment became a nuisance to local residents.

On a named vote, the motion was lost.

Those in favour of the motion were: Cllr Mel Allcott, Cllr Martin Allen, Cllr Dan Boatright, Cllr Lynn Denham, Cllr Andy Fry, Cllr Matt Jenkins, Cllr Natalie McVey, Cllr Beverley Nielsen, Cllr Josh Robinson, Cllr Richard Udall, Cllr Malcom Victory and Cllr Tom Wells. (12).

Those against the motion were: Cllr Alastair Adams, Cllr Allan Amos, Cllr Marc Bayliss, Cllr Bob Brookes, Cllr David Chambers, Cllr Brandon Clayton, Cllr Kyle Daisley, Cllr Nathan Desmond, Cllr Allah Ditta, Cllr Matt Dormer, Cllr Elizabeth Eyre, Cllr Simon Geraghty, Cllr Laura Gretton, Cllr Peter Griffiths, Cllr Karen Hanks, Cllr Ian Hardiman, Cllr Paul Harrison, Cllr Marcus Hart, Cllr Bill Hopkins, Cllr Adam Kent, Cllr Adrian  ...  view the full minutes text for item 2439.

The Council had before it a Notice of Motion set out in the agenda papers standing in the names of Cllr Mel Allcott, Cllr Richard Udall, and Cllr Dan Boatright.

The motion was moved by Cllr Lynn Denham and seconded by Cllr Mel Allcott, who both spoke in favour of it, and Council agreed to deal with it on the day.

Those in favour of the motion commented:

·         The motion was concerned with providing practical solutions to enable as many people as possible to become councillors and not put barriers in their way

·         It was important to attract people to become councillors from all backgrounds, particularly younger and female candidates.

·         A precedent had been set by other councils who had updated their governance arrangements to make parental leave available to help councillors undertake their role

·         This motion would help improve the balance of equality and diversity within the Council

·         This motion would remove obstacles from people wishing to become councillors. The current arrangements for requesting parental leave were ad hoc and inefficient.

Those against the motion commented:

·         The Cabinet Member with Responsibility for Corporate Services and Communication noted that the wide-ranging terms of reference of the Independent Remuneration Panel (IRP) included the importance of encouraging people from all backgrounds and circumstances to serve in local government without suffering financial loss as a result of their membership of the Council. On this basis, he considered that this motion was unnecessary

·         The motion asked the IRP how to, not whether to implement this policy. It was not for Council to instruct an independent body how to deal with this matter. There were other ways of addressing parental leave issues without the need for the introduction of a policy, for example providing substitutes at meetings through political groups.

On being put to a vote, the motion was lost.

The Council had before it a Notice of Motion set out in the agenda papers standing in the names of Cllr Matt Jenkins, Cllr Beverley Nielsen, Cllr Tom Wells, Cllr Natalie McVey, and Cllr Malcolm Victory.

The motion was moved by Cllr Matt Jenkins and seconded by Cllr Natalie McVey, who both spoke in favour of it, and Council agreed to deal with it on the day.

Those in favour of the motion commented:

·         “School Street” Schemes had been successfully trialled in many councils nationally. These schemes encouraged active travel and different modes of transport, made streets outside schools safer, improved air quality and improved the lives of local residents. The schemes usually involved the introduction of a Traffic Regulation Order prohibiting driving from Monday to Friday in school term time for a short period of time to coincide with school pickup and drop off times. At present, the Council did not have a “School Streets” policy and no way of applying for the introduction  of a “School Street “scheme on the Council’s website

·         At present, it was impossible to enforce zig-zag parking restrictions and 20 mph flashing speed limit signs outside schools without the introduction of a TRO

·         There was clear evidence of “School Streets” schemes working effectively in many areas of the country, particularly in London. It was therefore unnecessary to report to the OSPB as proposed by the Cabinet Member with Responsibility for Highways and Transport

·         The Chairman of the OSPB welcomed the suggestion by the Cabinet Member with Responsibility for Highways and Transport to provide a progress report on safer streets outside schools to OSPB. However, he requested that any suggestions made by OSPB should be accepted by Cabinet

·         There was a mixed picture across the county in terms of the effectiveness and ability to introduce advisory speed limits and TROs outside schools

·         It was requested that bus provision be included in any review of progress made on safer streets outside schools

·         Encouraging people to park a little further away from schools reduced congestion and associated pollution levels and improved road safety

·         The Council should consider introducing a “School Streets” pilot scheme in the county

·         It was not justifiable to continue to encourage parents to drive their children to school given the negative impact on the local community and climate change

·         The aim of a “School Streets” policy was to seek appropriate solutions for individual schools. It was recognised that for certain parts of the county, particularly rural areas, it might not be practical.

Those against the motion commented:

·         The Cabinet Member with Responsibility for Highways and Transport commented that he had asked officers to update the website with information about how the “School Street” schemes could be introduced in the community. Any school wishing to take part in the scheme would need to notify the Council and provide evidence of support from a parent body, demonstrate support locally and have volunteers available to facilitate the scheme on a daily basis. He would be happy to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 2441.

To receive the Leader’s report and to receive answers to any questions on it.

The Leader of the Council presented his report.

The Leader then answered a broad range of questions from members.

The Chairman thanked the Leader for his report.

The report was noted.

To receive the report of the Chief Executive and any answers to questions on it.

The Chief Executive presented his report to Council which covered various topics.

The Chief Executive answered a broad range of questions from members.

The Chairman thanked the Chief Executive for his report.

To receive the annual report of the Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Performance Board and answers to any questions on it.

The Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Performance Board (OSPB) introduced the report. He thanked the Board members and everyone involved in the scrutiny process for their work over the last 12 months. He also  acknowledged the good working relationship that scrutiny had with the Chief Executive, the Leader and Cabinet members. An aspect of the Board’s work that needed to be progressed was the approach taken to budget scrutiny, particularly in respect of policy development. The Board would therefore seek to be involved at an earlier stage to enable its contribution to be fed into the corporate strategy week in September.

The Vice-Chairman of the Board added his thanks to the Chairman of the Board and all the Panel Chairs for their support and hard work throughout the year.

The Chairman then answered a broad range of questions from members.

RESOLVED that the annual report of the Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Performance Board for 2022 be received.

To consider the future work programme recommended by the Overview and Scrutiny Performance Board.

The Council considered the Overview and Scrutiny Work Programme 2023/24.

The Chairman of OSPB introduced the report and noted the commitment of the Cabinet Member with Responsibility for Highways and Transport to report progress made on safer streets outside schools which would be added to the work programme accordingly.

RESOLVED that the 2023/24 Scrutiny Work Programme be endorsed.

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 Tuesday, 9 May 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)    Audit and Governance Committee; and

b)    Pensions Committee.

The Chairman of the Committee indicated that in order to meet the statutory publication deadline on 31 May 2023, the draft Statement of Accounts would be considered by the Committee at its meeting on 26 May.

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

It was queried whether the Pension Fund invested in local place-based initiatives within the county, for example in local infrastructure, social housing or renewable energy projects. The Chairman of the Pensions Committee responded that local place-based initiatives were not sufficiently big enough to generate the returns necessary for the Fund to meet its fiscal duty to its pensioners and employers.

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