Agenda and draft minutes

The members had before them:

A.    The Agenda papers (previously circulated);

B.    7 questions submitted to the Assistant Director for Legal and Governance (previously circulated); and

C.   The Minutes of the meeting held on 11 January 2024 (previously circulated).

The Chairman of the Council read out a statement in relation to the findings of the Local Child Safeguarding Practice Review into the death of Alfie Steele.

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 Salman Akbar, Martin Allen, Brandon Clayton, Matt Dormer, Aled Luckman, Luke Mallett, Tony Muir and Craig Warhurst.

Cllr Marcus Hart declared an interest on Agenda item 5 as a Non-Executive Director on the WCF Board in a non-remunerated role.

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, 14 February 2024). 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.

Alex Mace asked a question about establishing and supporting trial school streets for St George’s Roman Catholic Primary School and Stanley Road Primary School in Worcester.

Alec Mackie asked a question about the findings of the Local Child Safeguarding Review into the death of Alfie Steele.

The Chairman thanked Alex and Alec for their contribution and said they would receive a written response from the relevant Cabinet Member or the relevant person.

To approve as a correct record and authorise the signing of the Minutes of the meeting held on 11 January 2024 (previously circulated electronically).

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting held on 11 January 2024 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 those reports as follows:

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

b)    Reports of Cabinet – Summary of decisions taken.

The Leader of the Council introduced the report and commented that the last financial year had been challenging for the authority. In common with the majority of county councils and unitary authorities, the Council had experienced significant financial pressures as a result of increasing costs in Children’s Social Care placements, Home to School Transport and Adult Social Care. These demand-led pressures continued and after mitigation measures during the year, left a projected £19m overspend at the year end. However, the underlying pressures totalled £35m (structural deficit). As these continued, they needed to be funded into the future. In addition, the Council needed to make reasonable provision for the likely pay and price inflation, further predicted demand in social care and the cost of delivering planned works projects and improvements which added a further £52m. When added to the structural deficit, these totalled £87m worth of pressures that needed to be addressed through the budget.

He stated further that the proposed budget would address the deficit through additional Government Grant, Council Tax, a savings and efficiencies programme and the use of some reserves. The Council had worked with the CCN and local MPs to highlight these additional pressures to Government. These efforts had secured an extra £27.9m with £5m announced in recent weeks. The financial pressures were now recognised as needing national attention through funding and reform. He thanked Worcestershire MPs and the CCN for helping to secure this additional funding.  

He added that it was proposed to increase Council Tax by 2.99% to fund the continuation of the investment programme to tackle issues that public had highlighted as important as well as 2% for Adult Social Care to protect the most vulnerable residents. Together with the changes in the base budget, this would generate an additional £19.6m. He did not take the decision lightly to raise Council Tax, recognising the many pressures facing local residents, but it would enable the Council to protect the most vulnerable members of society and continue to invest in the transport network, build the school places needed, grow the economy and protect the environment. The Council Tax payments in Worcestershire would remain amongst the lowest of comparable councils in the country, providing value for money.

Whilst Government funding and Council Tax was helping to grow the Council’s income, costs were rising faster. The Council would therefore need to introduce a comprehensive savings and reform programme, review the size and shape of the authority, review costs by doing things differently, for example by seeking more foster carers and better value for money for placements. These proposed savings and efficiencies would total £37m. He thanked staff and management who had helped to develop these efficiency savings. Some reserves would still need to be used to achieve financial balance with an extra £2.3m proposed.

He concluded that the budget would put the Council on a sustainable financial footing, funding the demand-led pressures, protect the most vulnerable members of society whilst continuing to deliver a whole array of services  ...  view the full minutes text for item 2509.

The Leader of the Council introduced the report and commented that a streamlined and lean the management structure was proposed for the Council. It was recognised that the Council would be a slightly smaller organisation in the future, focussing the Council’s resources on the core functions including protecting the most vulnerable children and adults, promoting the economy, protecting the environment and maintaining roads and pavements. The Council would therefore require a smaller management team. He thanked the current management team for their work. The proposed management structure was based on three core areas, adults, children’s and economy and infrastructure but supported by the statutory roles such as the Director of Public Health, the Monitoring Officer, the Chief Financial Officer and a combined role of HR, digital and communications. These changes delivered a substantial part of the £2m management savings.

In the ensuing debate, the following points were made:

·         It was unfortunate that given the Council’s financial circumstances that this re-organisation was necessary

·         It was queried how many posts would be lost, whether managers would be made redundant and whether trade unions would be involved in the process

·         The rationale for the decision to move libraries, archives and archaeology under public health and whether the move would include adult community health was queried

·         The Leader of the Council explained that the chief officer posts (Tiers 1-3) would reduce from 22 posts to 17 posts and the Tier 2 posts would reduce from four to three. Subsequent management changes would be the responsibility of managers to undertake. The report set out the matching and slotting arrangements for the new structure and an Appointments Etc Panel would appoint as necessary. The work of Public Health concerned the community function and the prevention agenda, it was therefore considered appropriate that libraries, archives and archaeology would be a suitable fit.

RESOLVED that

a)    The Chief Executive’s proposed revised Directorate structure and functional areas of responsibility be approved in principle, subject to consultation;

b)    His proposals be supported, in principle subject to consultation, for the Chief Officer structure for Tiers 2 and 3 as set out in the report;

c)    The Chief Executive be authorised to carry out all necessary staff consultations in relation to the proposed changes;

d)    The Chief Executive be authorised, in consultation with the Leader, to finalise the detail of the management structure for Tier 2 and Tier 3 officers including the job and person specifications in accordance with the above Directorate structure;

e)    The Appointments Etc Panel be authorised to take all appropriate decisions in relation to the proposals for Tier 2 and 3 posts to support the new Directorate structure (including any deletion of existing posts, creation of new posts and appointments to them, and designation of statutory posts), and reviewing them in the future as appropriate; and

f)   The indicative timescale set out in Appendix 12 be noted and the remaining Directorate restructure be agreed to be completed by September 2024 or an earlier date as the Chief Executive  ...  view the full minutes text for item 2510.

The Leader of the Council reported on the Worcestershire Children First - Contract Options.

To consider the response to draft recommendations on the Electoral Boundaries Review.

The Cabinet Member with Responsibility for Communities introduced the report and thanked officers for their work in preparing the Council’s response. The Boundary Commission was keen to keep distinct communities together especially in rural areas. The Council’s response in relation to the Bromsgrove area was the main area of divergence from the Boundary Commission proposals, particularly in relation to two member divisions in Alvechurch and Wythall. Comments had also been made about Bromsgrove East and Bromsgrove South as well as Client Hills and Woodvale. There were minor proposed changes in Worcester City, particularly in respect of the name of the Warndon Parish Division and in relation to Evesham South. He encouraged members and communities to submit contributions before the closing date on 18 March.

In the ensuing debate, the following points were made:

·         Although the proposed amendment to the Evesham South Division was minor, it represented a significant change to Evesham town’s identity which was supported by Evesham Town Council

·         If councillors or members of the public were concerned about any of the proposals that they could directly input into the Boundary Commission process

·         Concern was expressed about the Boundary Commission proposals to change the boundary between the Warndon Parishes Division and the Nunnery Division which would result in them not being coterminous with either the City Ward boundary or the Warndon Villages boundary. If the proposals were agreed, it would create a third boundary and a third parish ward which did not comply with the Boundary Commission’s technical guidance. Warndon Parish Council would be objecting to this change

·         The Council’s response to the Boundary Commission’s draft recommendations was consistent and coherent

·         It was important that the proposals for the Wythall Division were supported to ensure that the community was properly represented and the Division did not become unmanageable as was the case in the initial Boundary Commission proposals

·         In relation to the Boundary Commission proposals for the Wythall/Alvechurch Divisions, it did not make sense to object to a two-member division on the basis of workload for local councillors given the lack of objections for the creation of two member divisions in Redditch

·         It was likely that parish councils on the boundary of Wychavon District Council and Redditch Borough Council would be submitting a response to the Boundary Commission regarding their concerns about the impact of these proposals

·         Barnt Green Parish Council were concerned that their parish would be moved into the Wythall/Alvechurch Division with representation by two county councillors

·         It had not proved possible to make the numbers work to establish single councillor divisions in Redditch Borough. The main issue in Redditch Borough related to the proposed naming of divisions, particularly Arrow Valley West

·         Communities and identities were far more important issues than councillor workload considerations.

RESOLVED that:

a)    The draft response to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England’s (LGBCE) draft recommendations be approved; and

b)   Authority be delegated to the Assistant Director for Legal and Governance, in consultation with the Leaders of the political  ...  view the full minutes text for item 2512.

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 6 February 2024.

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

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

The following amendment was moved by Cllr Simon Geraghty and seconded by Cllr Marcus Hart:

“The Council’s budget for the current financial year continues to face demand and cost pressures in three key areas of service provision: Children’s Social Care placements, Home to School Travel and Adult Social Care. 

These pressures are being experienced by most County Councils and upper-tier authorities across the country. Despite the welcome extra £500m funding for social care recently announced by the government, councils still face difficult decisions when setting their budgets for 2024/25.

We therefore call on the Chief Executive to:

·        Thank Worcestershire MPs for their efforts in lobbying to secure the extra £4.9m Government funding.

·        Continue to work with the County Councils Network & our MPs to make the case for additional funding for future financial years.

·        Lobby for a multi-year settlement to move away from the current year-to-year approach that is leaving Councils less able to plan.

·         Seek a review of funding for Children’s Social Care placements and Home to School Travel, as these are the origin of the biggest cost pressures on the County Council.”

The mover and seconder of the motion accepted the amendment and the motion as amended became the substantive motion. Members spoke in favour of the motion with the following points being made:

·         The LGA had warned that councils in England faced a £4bn funding gap over the next two years. As well as addressing the additional funding needs of councils, the Government should consider moving to multi-year financial settlements to enable councils to plan for long-term service provision, tackle the climate emergency and enable levelling up. In particular, a review of Children’s Social Care placements and Home to School Travel was necessary because costs in these areas were unsustainable. The Government should commit to the Fair Funding Review to address the issues of fair, sufficient and long-term funding

·         The Leader of the Council indicated that the Council should offer a genuine thanks to the local MPs for their lobbying efforts to secure the additional funds from the Government. It was the first time since 2016 that the Government had changed the settlement between the provisional and final settlement. The Council had lobbied and would continue to lobby the Government for additional funds through the CCN and with local MPs. It was important that multi-year local financial settlements were re-introduced to allow councils to plan with certainty. In addition the funding of Children’s Social Care placements and Home to School Travel should be considered as part of a Fair Funding Review because the current funding mechanisms were out of date and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 2513.

To receive the report of the Cabinet Member with Responsibility for Economy, Infrastructure and Skills 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 Economy, Infrastructure and Skills presented his report to Council which covered various topics. In particular, he thanked all officers for their work in supporting the services within his portfolio.

The Cabinet Member with Responsibility for Economy, Infrastructure and Skills answered a broad range of questions from members.

The Chairman thanked the Cabinet Member with Responsibility for Economy, Infrastructure and Skills for his report.

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 6 February 2024 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’.)

Seven 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; and

b)    Standards and Ethics Committee.

The Chairman of the Pensions Committee indicated that Cllr Andrew Cross would be provided with a breakdown of the Pension Fund’s investments in oil and gas.

The Council received the report of the Pensions 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.