Agenda and minutes

The Mayor welcomed all those present to the meeting.

At the start of the meeting, the Mayor led Members in paying tribute to former MP and former MEP, Ann Widdecombe, who had sadly been murdered since the previous Council meeting, by observing a minute’s silence.

Apologies for absence were received on behalf of Councillors Joe Baker, Bill Hartnett, Sharon Harvey, Jen Snape and Craig Warhurst.

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 meeting held on 29^th June 2026 were submitted.  Clarification was provided that the minutes were considered for accuracy only.

RESOLVED that

the minutes of the meeting of the Council held on 29^th June 2026 be approved as a true and correct record and signed by the Mayor.

The covering report and Appendix 1 to the report are attached to this agenda pack.  Appendix 2 to the report, detailing the outcomes of a meeting of the Electoral Matters Committee held on 30^th July 2026, will be published in a supplementary pack for this Council meeting.

The report on this subject that was considered at the Electoral Matters Committee meeting held on 30^th July 2026 has been published in a separate Background Papers Pack for the meeting.

The Leader presented a report on the subject of future wards within the Redditch electoral area for Members’ consideration.

Council was advised that the report had been prepared in order to meet a timescale set by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG), which required a response in respect of Redditch ward patterning by 17^th August 2026.  A report on this subject had previously been prepared and considered at a meeting of the Electoral Matters Committee held on 30^th July 2026, which had been chaired by the Leader.

Members were reminded that Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) would result in Redditch Borough Council becoming a part of a new unitary Council for North Worcestershire. Subject to legislation, this was expected to be an authority made up of 54 members, including 16 Councillors representing the current electoral area of Redditch.

In the original LGR submission, it had been put forward that the numbers of Councillors should be doubled in each county division to create the new unitary wards. The arrangement worked in most of Worcestershire but in Redditch it would mean four-member wards across the area. This would cause problems both electorally and in terms of representation.  There would be a dilution of accountability and reduced representational clarity for residents.  In addition, this would generate difficulties in terms of holding a principal election.

Officers had asked the opinion of both MHCLG and the Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE) about this matter.  Whilst the Commission had explained that it could not formally comment on authorities until they were operational, they did confirm that the LGBCE would not create four-member wards under normal circumstances.  MHCLG had responded to explain that they were content to allow Redditch Borough Council to review ward patterning using existing Borough ward boundaries rather than county divisions.  The number of seats for the Redditch electoral area were to remain at 16.

In reviewing arrangements, it was concluded that the only viable ward patterning for Redditch would be to have seven wards.  Five wards would remain as they were but represented by two rather than three Members.  The other four existing wards would be combined to make two new wards, each represented by three Members.  This approach had been endorsed by the Informal Working Group on LGR in Worcestershire and by Redditch Borough Council’s Group Leaders. Group Leaders further agreed that elected Members should have a chance to comment on the matter.  Consequently, the subject was scheduled for the consideration of the Electoral Matters Committee and then referred on to Council, for a decision on a submission to MHCLG.

Prior to the Electoral Matters Committee meeting, a questionnaire had been circulated to Members seeking their preferred ward combinations and the reasons for their preferences. Sixteen responses were received within the specified timeframe. Based on these responses, six viable scenarios, derived from the four most favoured ward combinations, were developed and presented to the Electoral Matters Committee.  Following discussions, the Committee had agreed to recommend to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 35.

A report on the subject of the Designation of the Monitoring Officer Function is due to be considered at a meeting of the Joint Appointments Committee scheduled to take place on 3^rd August 2026, after the publication of the agenda for this Council meeting.  Any recommendations arising from that meeting on this subject will be reported to Council in a supplementary pack for this meeting.

The Leader presented a report concerning the designation of the Monitoring Officer function at the Council.

Members were informed that the Council was required by law to designate an officer to undertake the statutory role of Monitoring Officer. The Assistant Director of Legal, Democratic and Procurement Services was currently designated as the Monitoring Officer of the Council.   However, Members were asked to note that following consideration of senior leadership arrangements through the appropriate governance process, the title of the role was changing to Executive Director of Governance and Assurance.  Council was therefore asked to consider transferring the statutory designation of Monitoring Officer to that new post title, to come into effect once the revised structure was implemented.

The purpose of the proposal was to ensure continuity, clarity and compliance with the Council's statutory obligations and to ensure that the Monitoring Officer designation remained attached to a role that existed within the Council's structure.  

Members were asked to note that the decision had no direct financial implications in itself, as any financial considerations were addressed through the separate restructuring process.  Instead, Council was invited to consider the proposal to ensure that the authority achieved good governance and statutory compliance.

Following the presentation of the report, reference was made to the meeting of the Joint Appointments Committee that had been held on 3^rd August 2026 at which a report on this subject had been considered.  At that meeting, Members had been advised that the position of the Assistant Director of Legal, Democratic and Procurement Services had been reassessed as an Executive Director role by both independent employment specialists and independent legal consultants respectively.  As part of this review process, a job evaluation exercise had been completed by independent experts.

It was noted that the realignment of the Monitoring Officer post to Director level would enhance governance arrangements at the Council.  The Monitoring Officer would also be employed at a more equivalent level to the other statutory officers: the Chief Finance Officer and the Head of Paid Service.  As a consequence, the Monitoring Officer would be in a stronger position to hold the organisation to account and to ensure that governance considerations shaped Council performance and service delivery.

During consideration of this item, questions were raised as to why the role of Executive Director of Governance and Assurance had not been advertised for recruitment and whether the process that had been followed had been transparent.  Clarification was provided that the focus of the report was on the assignment of the Monitoring Officer, as a statutory post, to the position of Executive Director.  The Joint Appointments Committee had already considered a report on the proposals in respect of the Executive Director post.  This meeting had been held in public and the decision-making process had been fully transparent.  The report to Council was not designed to review the decision taken by the Joint Appointments Committee and Members were asked to note that Council had not been asked to recruit new staff.

Consideration was given  ...  view the full minutes text for item 36.

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.