Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received on behalf of Councillors Roger Bennett and Derek Taylor.

There were no declarations of interest.

To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Council held on 22^nd July 2013.

RESOLVED that

the minutes of the meeting of the Council held on 22^nd July 2013 be agreed as a correct record and signed by the Mayor.

(a)       Mayor

The Mayor’s communications and announcements were as follows:

i)          Mayoral Functions

The Mayor advised that since the last meeting of the Council she and the Deputy Mayor had attended a number of engagements, including an iaugural banquet at Worcester Guildhall, a graduation event at Redditch Library, the Scarecrow Weekend at Forge Mill Museum, the send-off for the Borough’s Special Olympians, the Palace Theatre Centenary celebrations, the Mayor of Pershore’s charity event and a local Alzheimer’s Society event.

ii)         Forthcoming events

The Mayor advised that forthcoming events included an event hosted by the Kerala Society, a meeting of the Worcestershire Ambassadors and, finally her own Civic Service on 22^nd September.

The Mayor thanked her Deputy for standing in for her on those occasions when she was unable to attend an event.

(b)       Leader

The Leader’s announcements were as follows:

i)          Mrs Veronica Allen

The Leader introduced former community leader and community worker, Mrs Veronica Allen, who was visiting Redditch from her home in Jamaica. Mrs Allen presented a gift to the Mayor from the Jamaican Tourist Board  to celebrate 50 years of Jamaican independence and expressed her hope that the twinning links between Redditch and St Elizabeth in Jamaica might prosper.

ii)         Mrs Tanweer Dean

The Leader led the Council in recognising the outstanding contribution to the community made by Mrs Tanweer Dean through her excellent and dedicated service at the Sandycroft Centre and Mrs Dean was presented with a certificate by the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Leader.

iii)        Mercian Regiment

Following the question at the previous meeting of the Council in respect of the Mercian Regiment, the Leader advised that he had subsequently been in contact with the Adjutant of the 37^th Signal Regiment, based at Kohima House, Redditch, and extended an invitation to all Members to attend and observe a military training event in mid-October.

iv         Palace Theatre

The Leader advised that he, along with a number of other members of the Council, had attended the celebrations of the centenary of the Palace Theatre the previous weekend and reported that he had subsequently thanked and congratulated the staff at the Palace for their work and dedication.

v)         Local Enterprise Partnership

The Leader reported that a meeting had taken place the previous week at which the Leaders of the three north Worcestershire authorities had met with Mr Andy Street from the Greater Birmingham and Solihull Local Enterprise Partnership.

vi)        Good Funeral Awards

The Leader led the Council in congratulating two employees of the Council, Amanda Ryan and Martin McEvilly, who had reached the finals of the Good Funeral Awards and had been awarded second place in the category of Crematorium Attendants of the Year.

vii)       Special Olympics

The Leader reported on the tremendous success of Redditch athletes at the recent Special Olympics at Bath. The Council was advised that the successful athletes would be invited to attend the following meeting of the Council in order that they might be congratulated in person.

viii)  ...  view the full minutes text for item 43.

To consider the following Questions for the Leader, which have been submitted in accordance with Procedure Rule 9.2:

1.         “Borough of Redditch Local Plan No.4 and Redditch Housing Growth Consultation Documents”

Mr David Rose

2.         “Borough of Redditch Local Plan No.4 and Redditch Housing Growth Consultation Documents”

Bentley Area Action Group – Mr Malcolm Glainger, Chair

(Questions attached)

The Leader responded to two questions submitted in accordance with Procedure Rule 9.2 from Mr David Rose and Mr Malcolm Glainger. Both questions related to the Borough of Redditch Local Plan No.4.

Mr Rose asked the following question:

Why are Redditch Borough Council still advocating building between 600 and 3,400 houses in Webheath, when Redditch Borough Council Planning Committee on 22nd May, 3013 voted against Taylor Wimpey building 200 new houses, (which surely means that Redditch Borough Council have decided not to build in Webheath), because of poor highway infrastructure, over subscribed local schools, poor unsustainable infrastructures (including foul sewage) etc.?

The Leader replied as follows:

Paragraph 3.16 in the Report answers this question and explains why an early planning application from a developer, on part of a proposed site, is different to the consideration of sites for inclusion through the Plan making process.

3.16 “…With regards to Policy 48 Webheath, Officers are aware that the Council refused planning permission on 22^nd May 2013 for a proposal on part this Strategic Site set out in the Draft Local Plan No.4. The refusal was based upon the proposal’s additional traffic generation on the local road network coupled with the lack of suitable infrastructure to support the development and the lack of contribution towards the wider highway network infrastructure; however this does not alter the fact that the proposal site and the remainder of the Webheath Strategic Site is capable of sustainable delivery in the short to medium term, subject to necessary infrastructure being delivered. This Strategic Site should therefore continue to feature in the Proposed Submission version of the Borough of Redditch Local Plan No.4.”

More details will follow later this year on the viability of the site to be able to deliver the necessary infrastructure. This will confirm whether there are showstoppers to the Local Plan’s proposed allocated sites being delivered sustainably. The necessary works for the Foxlydiate site will be tested through detailed highway modelling. The costs of wider highway infrastructure and other sustainable transport costs will need to be aggregated to the Webheath site and to the cross boundary site at Foxlydiate in order to test the viability accurately. The cost of implementing necessary sewerage treatment for the two sites is borne by both the developer (for the on-site drainage, connection, pumping station and pressurised sewer) and Severn Trent Water and therefore has little impact on the ability of the site to be delivered, in any case the cost of upgrade works to serve these sites would not be vastly different to the alternative site options.

Mr Rose subsequently asked the following supplementary question of the Leader:

Mr Rose stated that he did not agree with the answer provided by the Leader and briefly recounted the reasons given for refusal of an application to build 200 dwellings at Webheath by the Planning Committee in May of this year, the decision of which body had concluded by declaring that the proposed development was not  ...  view the full minutes text for item 44.

No motions had been submitted.

To receive the minutes and consider the recommendations and/or referrals from the following meeting of the Executive Committee:

2^nd September 2013

Matters requiring the Council’s consideration include:

• Borough of Redditch Local Plan No.4;
• Changes to Scheme of Fees and Charges for Non-Statutory Planning Advice;
• Greater Birmingham and Solihull Local Enterprise Partnership – Delegation of Functions to a Joint Committee; and
• Overview and Scrutiny Committee – 2^nd July 2013.

(Reports attached – decisions to follow with publication of the minutes on Thursday, 5^th September 2013. Appendices 1 – 4 to the Local Plan No.4 Item are available via the Council’s website, at Reception at the Town Hall and for Councillor in the Group Rooms.)

(Minutes of the meeting on 2^nd September 2013 to follow)

Members considered the minutes of the Executive Committee meeting of 2^nd September 2013.

2^nd September 2013

Borough of Redditch Local Plan No.4

At the request of the Mayor, Planning Officers provided a brief summary of the contents of the appendices which made up the Plan and its associated documents.

The Leader noted that the Council was at one stage in a very long process which had started some years beforehand and reiterated the requirement upon the Council to produce such a Plan. Given the assessed need for additional dwelling spaces, the Council had approached Bromsgrove District Council under the Duty to Co-operate and the preferred housing development sites had been selected following the assessment of a number of potential sites.

The Portfolio Holder highlighted that, without a Plan, there would be a free for all, Central Government could impose a Plan and the Council could be forced to spend a great deal of money defending against developers. It was stated that the Plan was based on robust evidence, sound professional advice from Officers and a thorough and proper consultation process. The meeting was reminded that, should the recommendations be approved by the Council, there would follow a period during which the soundness of the Plan might be challenged and Officers would be on hand to assist people to frame such challenges in a way which would be recognised by the Planning Inspector.

A number of other Members of the Council spoke on the proposals before it, with the main points raised being summarised below.

·           Not all of the sites identified within the Local Plan for housing development had previously been brought before Members for consideration, including the two sites alongside the A435 in Matchborough and Winyates;

·           The transport infrastructure in areas identified for housing development was not suitable;

·           The views of the local community should form a major consideration in the making of such decisions;

·           Redditch new town had been developed in a planned way with employment land and housing land built in close proximity, which reduced the need for lengthy commuting to work. The present plans separated housing and employment land and went against this principle;

·           The numbers of new dwellings which had been identified as being required for the Borough in the period since the West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy were contested as being too high;

·           The types and density of the housing which was being proposed under the Local Plan were not considered suitable;

·           A number of green spaces and areas of the Green Belt would be lost as a result of the proposals within the Local Plan;

·           Areas surrounding those identified for the major areas of housing development would be rendered vulnerable to flooding as a result of this additional development;

·           Redditch would be celebrating 50 years of the New Town next year and dire pronouncements had been made at that time about the future of the town which had proved to be unfounded;

·           Members were being asked to approve matters which had not  ...  view the full minutes text for item 46.

To consider a proposed restructure of a number of Heads of Service roles and responsibilities within the Finance and Resources Directorate. Determination of  this matter was deferred at the previous meeting of the Council to allow for proper consideration of consultation responses.

As was noted at the previous meeting of the Council, subsequent to the meeting of the Executive Committee on 9^th July the relevant parties were consulted on the contents of the report and thus the report and decision are no longer deemed exempt.

(Report, consultation responses and Executive Committee decision attached)

Following the deferral of determination of this matter at the previous meeting of the Council, Members considered a report concerning a proposed restructure of a number of Heads of Service roles and responsibilities within the Finance and Resources Directorate.

RESOLVED that

the business case for the restructure of the Directorate be approved.

(Members of the Conservative group on the Council and Councillor Michael Braley wished it to be recorded that they had abstained from voting on this matter)

To formally receive the minutes of the following meetings of the Council’s Regulatory Committees:

Audit & Governance Committee   27^th June 2013

Planning Committee                       31^st July 2013

Standards Committee                     25^th July 2013

There are outstanding recommendations for the Council from the meeting of the Standards Committee held on 25^th July 2013 – decision and report attached.

(Minutes circulated in Minute Book 3 – 2013/14)

Members received the minutes of recent meetings of the Audit and Governance, Planning and Standards Committees.

RESOLVED that

1)        the minutes of the meeting of the Audit and Governance Committee held on 27^th June 2013 be received and adopted;

2)        the minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on 31^st July 2013 be received and adopted; and

3)        the minutes of the meeting of the Standards Committee held on 25^th July 2013 be received and all outstanding recommendations adopted.

To consider whether to delegate authority and set fees so that the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 2013 can be effectively implemented from 1^st October 2013.

(Report attached)

The Council considered a report which set out proposals which would allow the provisions of the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 2013 to be effectively implemented from 1^st October 2013.

Members were generally pleased that the Act had come into force and were interested to establish how it might effectively regulate the business within the Borough. It was noted that the fees had been proposed at a level which would cover the costs incurred by the Council in carrying out the procedures and formalities of administering the statutory regime.

The Council noted that the Act primarily affected the activities of scrap metal dealers and had less impact on the activities of collectors, a discrepancy which was the source of disappointment to some who felt that the collectors were an occasional cause of nuisance. Officers highlighted that the Act was primarily to deal with matters other than noise nuisance, a problem which was the realm of the Environmental Protection Act. However, Officers did suggest that the authority could deem the suitability of licence holders, that licences could be revoked and that factors such as complaints under the Environmental Protection Act might form grounds for such action. Officers undertook to report back to Councillor Brunner on measures proposed to be undertaken the previous year to tackle noise nuisance by Regulatory Services. Officers also undertook to confirm for Councillor Hopkins  the situation with regard to the Environmental Protection Act and noise emitted from moving as opposed to stationery vehicles

RESOLVED that

1)        authority be delegated to Licensing Sub-Committees to refuse applications made under paragraph 2 or 3 of Schedule 1 of the Act for the grant or variation of a licence;

2)        authority be delegated to Licensing Sub-Committees to revoke or vary a licence under section 4 of the Act;

3)        authority be delegated to the Head of Worcestershire Regulatory Services to carry out all other functions and exercise all other powers provided under the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 2013; and

4)        the fees to be charged under the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 2013 be set as shown in the table at Appendix 3 to the report.

There were no Urgent Decisions to note.

To consider any additional items exceptionally agreed by the Mayor as Urgent Business in accordance with the powers vested in her 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 were no separate items of urgent business to consider at this meeting.