Agenda and minutes

The Mayor welcomed all those present to the meeting.

At the start of the meeting, the Mayor advised Members that the Equalities Strategy had been included twice on the agenda. It was noted that this had arisen as a result of an administrative error and that the report would be considered only once, as a recommendation arising from the Executive Committee meeting held on 8^th September 2026.

In addition, Council was informed that the Food Waste Collections Implementation report had been withdrawn from the agenda for this meeting. This was because work relating to the Medium Term Financial Plan, as referenced in the recommendation, remained ongoing and therefore Council was not yet in a position to make a decision on the policy.

Apologies for absence were received on behalf of Councillors Juliet Barker Smith, Bill Harnett, Rita Rogers, Craig Warhurst and Ian Woodall.

To invite Councillors to declare any Disclosable Pecuniary Interests or Other Disclosable Interests they may have in items on the agenda, and to confirm the nature of those interests.

There were no declarations of interest.

The minutes of the Council meetings held on 10^th August and 26^th August 2026 were submitted. Clarification was provided that the minutes were considered for accuracy only.

RESOLVED that

the minutes of the meetings of the Council held on 10^th August and 26^th August 2026 be approved as a true and correct record and signed by the Mayor.

To consider Announcements under Procedure Rule 10:

a)           Mayor’s Announcements

b)           The Leader’s Announcements

c)           Chief Executive’s Announcements.

The following announcements were made at the meeting.

The Mayor’s Announcements

The Mayor reported that she had attended the Redditch Carnival on Saturday 19^th September 2026, which had attracted a substantial turnout, with hundreds of residents and their families in attendance. The Mayor expressed her appreciation to those Councillors who had supported with funding for the event and stated her hope that such support would continue in future years to help preserve the tradition.

The Mayor concluded her announcements by inviting Members to attend a Civic Service she would be hosting on Sunday 29^th November 2026 at St Stephen’s Church.

The Leader’s Announcements

The Leader advised Members that he had attended a meeting of the West Midlands Combined Authority (WMCA) Board in recent weeks, during which the Mayor of the West Midlands, Richard Parker, had highlighted that there were funding opportunities available for Redditch, including support for housing provision.

Chief Executive’s Announcements

The Chief Executive provided Council with an update on Local Government Reorganisation (LGR). Members were informed that the Minister for Local Government, Devolution and Regional Growth had written to Councils in Worcestershire on 7^th September 2026 requesting that implementation work relating to LGR be paused. It was reported that the Council was considering the implications of this request and that officers had been asked to identify and highlight any concerns to ensure that Members remained informed.

In the meantime, the focus of work had shifted to preparatory and housekeeping activities associated with LGR. Members were advised that any references to a particular LGR model contained within reports on the agenda would be amended as appropriate. It was further reported that feedback from the Government was expected by the end of October 2026.

The following Question on Notice was submitted by Councillor Sharon Harvey in advance of the meeting for the consideration of the Leader:

“Please can the Leader update the Council on the progress of the £1.6 million Community Investment Fund which was agreed within the last budget?”

In responding to the question, the Leader advised that on 23^rd February 2026 the Executive Committee agreed the Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP), which was subsequently approved by Council on 2^nd March 2026. As part of the MTFP, the creation of an earmarked reserve of £1.6 million for a Community Investment Fund (CIF) had been approved.

The Leader explained that the same report had also included approval of a capital programme incorporating new projects totalling £1.739 million. It had been noted within the report that only £1.1 million of funding was available within the capital financing budget and that any additional funding requirement would need to be financed from the CIF. As the additional capital funding had subsequently been approved by both the Executive Committee and Council, the funding available within the CIF had reduced to £0.961 million.

Members were further informed that, in May 2026, a report relating to the CIF had been withdrawn from the Executive Committee agenda at the request of Members in order to allow additional time for the details of the policy to be reviewed. Subsequently, a Financial Resilience Review had commenced which recommended consideration of a range of matters, including the capital programme, revenue budget and earmarked reserves. The funding allocated to the CIF would therefore be considered as part of that review.

In a supplementary question, Councillor Harvey asked how the Leader would ensure that local communities received the investment they deserved in the coming months while funding through the CIF was on hold.

In response, the Leader advised that a number of issues affecting the Council's finances required consideration. By way of example, reference was made to discussions at a previous Council meeting regarding the need to replace the roof of the Town Hall, a project for which funding had not been identified within the budget. The Leader stated that, whilst this was not a community investment project in itself, it nevertheless represented an important financial commitment for the authority. It was further noted that this was only one of a number of budgetary pressures facing the Council. Once the Financial Resilience Review had been completed, there would be a clearer understanding of the funding available and the Council's financial position. Members would be updated accordingly as further information became available.

Maggs Day Centre

The following Motion on Notice was presented by Councillor Monica Stringfellow at the meeting:

“This Council notes the exceptional work performed by the Maggs Day Centre charity across Worcestershire in supporting people facing homelessness, housing insecurity, drug addiction and social exclusion. 

Maggs Day Centre in Redditch provides housing advice, and harm addiction support, supporting more than 100 people during its first six months of operation, showing the great need there is in Redditch for such a service. The numbers of homeless people in Redditch are difficult to assess as we are aware of those who are not currently sleeping rough, but who are moving from place to place “sofa surfing".

The limited opening hours currently offered by Maggs means that there is nowhere for people seeking help to access this support and means that most of the time there is nowhere for these vulnerable people to go for help, perhaps at a time when they most need support.  Getting the support and care they need in a timely manner, leads to a reduction in financial burden on the NHS, the emergency services and the Council.  

We request that the Portfolio Holder for Housing works in partnership with the Council, the NHS  and other organisations such as Cranstoun to explore the possibility of  increasing funding to Maggs to enable them to extend their current provision to five days a week aligning with the both the government target of ending homelessness and addressing the issue of anti-social behaviour in Redditch Town Centre, in particular Church Green, to support both those who require these services and the wider population in feeling safe within our town. 

Concerns regarding rough sleeping and associated anti-social behaviour in parts of the town centre can affect public confidence, footfall and the perception of Redditch as a safe and welcoming town centre.”

The Motion was proposed by Councillor Monica Stringfellow and seconded by Councillor Jane Spilsbury.

In response, the Leader thanked Councillors Stringfellow and Spilsbury for bringing forward the Motion and for recognising the valuable work undertaken by Maggs Day Centre, in partnership with the Council’s Homelessness Prevention Team, in supporting some of the Borough's most vulnerable residents.

The positive impact of the service was highlighted, it was noted that it had supported more than one hundred individuals during its first six months of operation.

Members were reminded that the Council had already demonstrated its commitment to tackling rough sleeping and preventing homelessness through the commissioning of support services.

The Leader reported that, on 13th January 2026, the Executive Committee had approved the allocation of Homelessness Prevention Grant funding for a three-year period from 2026 to 2029. As part of this decision, the Council had agreed to provide funding for the Maggs Rough Sleeper Outreach Service of £106,822 per annum for each of the three years.

It was further noted that this represented a significant change from previous funding arrangements. By moving to a three-year funding programme, the Council had sought to provide greater  ...  view the full minutes text for item 48.

The Chair of the Constitutional Reform Working Party (CRWP) presented the report and informed Members that the proposals were significant, reflecting substantial legislative changes due to come into effect on 31st October 2026.

Members were advised that the Government was introducing a mandatory National Scheme of Delegations for planning functions, requiring all local planning authorities in England to amend their constitutions to ensure compliance. The proposals had been considered by the CRWP prior to their submission to Council.

It was explained that, under the current arrangements, planning authorities were able to determine their own local procedures for the consideration of planning applications. This typically involved routine applications being determined by officers under delegated powers, with other applications referred to the Planning Committee. The circumstances in which applications were referred to the Planning Committee varied between authorities and could include factors such as the number of objections received, the size of a development site, or where a Member had requested that an application be called in for determination by the Committee.

It was reported that Government considered these differing local arrangements to create inconsistencies and uncertainty for applicants and developers, and that the new scheme sought to establish a more uniform approach across England. It was anticipated that the reforms would enable Planning Committees to focus on more complex and significant applications.

The principal implications for Redditch Borough Council were summarised as follows:

• All planning applications would be classified as either Schedule 1 or Schedule 2 applications.
• Schedule 1 applications would be determined exclusively by officers under delegated powers and would not be referred to the Planning Committee. The existing ability for Members to call in applications affecting their wards would therefore cease to apply in respect of these applications.
• Schedule 2 applications could be determined either by officers or by the Planning Committee. However, there would be a presumption in favour of determination by officers under delegated powers. Such applications could only be referred to Planning Committee where they met one or both elements of the "gateway test", namely:
  • where the application raised one or more issues of economic, social or environmental significance to the local area; and/or
  • where the application raised one or more significant planning matters having regard to the development plan or other material considerations.

Council was informed that the legislation also prescribed how the gateway test was to operate. Each authority would be required to appoint both a nominated officer and a nominated Member. For Redditch Borough Council, it was proposed that the nominated officer would be the Assistant Director for Planning, Leisure and Culture Services with the nominated Member ordinarily being the Chair of the Planning Committee. Deputy appointments would also be made to provide cover in cases of absence.

The nominated officer and nominated Member would meet regularly to review Schedule 2 applications where the gateway test might apply. They would consider case summaries prepared by the relevant planning officer, together with information regarding the potential application of the gateway test criteria. Following  ...  view the full minutes text for item 49.

The Mayor advised that, under normal circumstances, the Annual Report would be presented by the Chair or Vice-Chair of the Audit, Governance and Standards Committee who had served during the year covered by the report. However, the former Chair was now a member of the Executive Committee and, under the Council's Constitution, Executive Committee Members were not permitted to serve on the Audit, Governance and Standards Committee due to its role in holding the Executive to account. In addition, the former Vice-Chair was no longer a serving Councillor.

The Mayor therefore invited Members to note the report and on behalf of the Council, thanked the Committee and all Members who had served on it during the 2025/26 municipal year for their hard work and commitment.

During the discussion, Members recognised the significant contribution made by those serving on the Audit, Governance and Standards Committee and acknowledged the important role the Committee played in supporting good governance and holding decision-makers to account.

Particular reference was made to the importance of the Council's risk management arrangements, including the role of the Risk Champion and the maintenance of an up-to-date Corporate Risk Register. Members were advised that reports relating to risks facing the authority were considered regularly by the Committee and were encouraged to familiarise themselves with the Risk Register and the risks identified within it.

RESOLVED that

the Audit, Governance and Standards Committee Annual Report 2025/26 be noted.

The Leader presented the report, which represented the next stage in the preparation of Redditch Borough Council’s Local Plan.

Members were reminded that the Government had introduced a new plan-making system and that work already undertaken, including the Issues and Options consultation conducted during the previous year, would continue to inform the new process. It was reported that the required scoping consultation had been undertaken between 3rd July and 14th August 2026 and had generated thirty-three responses from residents, statutory consultees, developers and landowners. Officers had reviewed the responses received and concluded that no issues had been identified that would prevent the Council from progressing to the next stage of the process.

It was explained that the next step was Gateway 1, which involved the Council's self-assessment of its readiness to prepare the new Local Plan, including confirmation that appropriate resources, governance arrangements and processes were in place to meet the requirements of the Government's revised timetable.

Members were informed that the report did not seek approval of the final Local Plan, housing allocations or specific development sites. It was emphasised that significant further work and consultation would be undertaken before decisions on such matters were reached.

The proposed timetable was outlined, with the first draft of the new Local Plan scheduled for consultation in summer 2027. This draft would incorporate feedback from previous consultations, additional evidence-based documents, including a revised Green Belt Review, and further work relating to infrastructure requirements. The proposed submission version of the Local Plan was expected to be published in spring 2028, with adoption currently scheduled for April 2029.

Members were also advised that there was a financial incentive to maintain progress against the timetable. The Council had been awarded additional funding of £108,000 towards the preparation of the Local Plan, subject to publication of the Gateway 1 Self-Assessment by 31st October 2026. It was noted that failure to progress in accordance with the timetable could result in the funding being returned.

It was therefore reported that the purpose of the report was to ensure continued progress on an evidence-led Local Plan process and to provide further opportunities for residents and stakeholders to help shape the future development of the Borough.

During debate on the item, Members made the following comments:

• Concern was expressed regarding the level of public participation in the scoping consultation, with particular reference made to the relatively small number of responses received from residents. It was suggested that future consultation exercises should seek to engage the public more effectively and encourage wider participation.
• Members recognised the work undertaken by officers and the Planning Advisory Panel (PAP) in progressing the Local Plan process. It was noted that further stages of consultation would take place and were likely to generate greater public interest and engagement. Members were encouraged to attend PAP meetings to gain a fuller understanding of the process.
• It was suggested that additional engagement methods, including greater outreach and the use of focus groups, could help to capture a broader range  ...  view the full minutes text for item 51.

Council considered recommendations that had been agreed at three separate meetings of the Executive Committee held on 17^th March, 28^th July and 8^th September 2026. As announced by the Mayor at the commencement of the meeting, at the previous ordinary meeting of Council, consideration of the Empty Homes Policy had been deferred to allow Members additional time to consider an updated version of the document.

Empty Homes Policy

The Portfolio Holder for Housing presented the report and thanked officers for their work in preparing the policy and responding to concerns raised by Members. It was explained that the proposed amendments were minor but important, consisting of revised wording to make clear that the policy related exclusively to empty homes in the private sector and not to the Council's own housing stock. Members were assured that these amendments would help to avoid any potential misunderstanding.

During the debate, the importance of bringing empty properties back into use was highlighted, particularly given the ongoing demand for housing within the Borough. Whilst Redditch compared favourably with many other areas in relation to the proportion of long-term empty homes, it was noted that there were still approximately 320 properties that had been vacant for more than six months. Members were advised that each property returned to occupation had the potential to provide an additional home and formed an important part of making best use of existing housing stock alongside the delivery of new homes.

Members welcomed the revised policy and the additional clarification provided in the document to address concerns that had previously been raised.

The recommendation was proposed by Councillor Ashley Monk and seconded by Councillor Matthew Dormer.

Food Waste Collections Implementation

The Mayor advised that this item had been withdrawn from the agenda at the request of officers.

Treasury Management Outturn Report 2025/26

In the absence of the Portfolio Holder for Finance, the Leader presented the Treasury Management Outturn Report 2025/26.

The purpose of the Annual Report was to set out the Council's treasury management and capital financing position, together with performance against the Prudential Indicators for the year. It was noted that the reporting period had been characterised by continued economic uncertainty and fluctuating interest rates. Throughout this period, the Council's primary objective had been the prudent management of borrowing and financial risk.

As at 31st March 2026, the Council's total external borrowing stood at £115.93 million, which remained within the Council's authorised borrowing limit. Members were advised that the Council's treasury management activities during the year had been conducted in accordance with the Treasury Management Code and the Council's approved Treasury Management Strategy. It was further reported that the Council had complied with all relevant Prudential Indicators and investment limits.

The recommendations were proposed by Councillor Matthew Dormer and seconded by Councillor Gemma Monaco.

Quarter 4 Financial Monitoring and Outturn Report 2025/26

The Leader presented the Quarter 4 Financial Monitoring and Outturn Report 2025/26, which set out the Council's final revenue and capital outturn position for the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 52.

(None to date).

The Mayor advised that no urgent decisions had been taken since the previous Council meeting.

To consider any additional items exceptionally agreed by the Mayor as Urgent Business in accordance with the powers vested in him by virtue of Section 100(B)(4)(b) of the Local Government Act 1972.

(This power should be exercised only in cases where there are genuinely special circumstances which require consideration of an item which has not previously been published on the Order of Business for the meeting.)

There was no urgent business for consideration on this occasion.