Agenda and minutes

Before the agenda was considered, the Chair announced that he proposed to change the order of the agenda. It was proposed that items 11, 12, and 13 on the printed agenda be considered as items 5, 7, and 6 respectively. The Committee agreed to this change of the agenda order.

The Chair advised Members that the Acquisition of Properties – Pre-Scrutiny report contained exempt information in the appendix. Members were advised that the Chair was keen to remain in public session throughout the discussions in respect of this item but Members were asked to notify him in advance if they wished to discuss the exempt information. In the end, the meeting remained in public session for the duration.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Warhurst.

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

There were no declarations of interest nor of party whip.

The minutes of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting of 9 June 2025 will be considered at this meeting.

The minutes of the Overview and Scrutiny meeting of 9^th June 2025 were submitted for Members’ consideration.

A typographical error was noted in the minutes record in that attendance by the Principal Democratic Services Officer was not recorded in the minutes. This omission would be corrected.

RESOLVED that

subject to the above correction, the minutes of the meeting of Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on 9^th June 2025 be approved as a true and correct record and signed by the Chair.

To invite members of the public who have registered in advance of the meeting to speak to the Committee.

There were no public speakers who had registered to speak at this meeting.

The report will follow in a supplementary pack for this meeting after it has been published for the meeting of Executive Committee (due for publication on Monday 30 June).

This item includes confidential appendices and may need to be discussed in exempt session.

A report on the appointment of contractor for stage 4 designs of the Digital Manufacturing and Innovation Centre (DMIC) was presented to Overview and Scrutiny.

Members were informed that the DMIC project was nearing the completion of stage 3 designs and this report concerned stage 4 design only, which was the final stage before the construction phase of the project. This report sought approval to procure a design and build contractor that could work with the project team to complete Stage 4 designs and more accurately determine the likely costs of construction. It was stated that this approach would ensure there was input from the construction contractor prior to the actual construction starting.

It was reported that the project remained on track for the construction to start in January 2026. The stage 4 design work was due to be contracted via a JCT Pre-Construction Services Agreement and following input from costs consultants it had been estimated that the costs of bringing a contractor on board for Stage 4 designs would cost between £250,000 and £300,000. However, as the exact costs remained unknown prior to sourcing updated quotations this report requested delegated authority to agree a contract value of up to £400,000, to provide sufficient headroom and contingency.

A Member asked for clarification in respect of whether the paragraph 5.3 implied that the appointed lead designers of the AHR Architects were selected to design the DMIC project because of their climate change expertise. It was responded that the lead architects possessed background in designing to environmental standards, and the DMIC project specifically would be designed to accredited environmental standards, including local and national climate change policies, the implementation of environmentally friendly features would be scrutinised by the Project Board throughout the design. Some of the features to make the DMIC building environmentally friendly included opportunities for rainwater harvesting, air source heat pumps to provide low-temperature heating, and designs allowing space for a photovoltaic (PV) array on the roof of the building.

The Chair commented that the costs of DMIC had increased from £8 million in the original Town Investment Plan to almost £12 million in the revised Town Deal budget. It was asked whether this added cost was reflected in providing a DMIC building that was at least 50 per cent larger than the original designs. It was responded that allocation of extra funding to the DMIC had been signed off by the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG). It was assessed by officers that the DMIC would provide significant added value for end users with the additional investment, including an increase in lettable space at DMIC from 7,000 square feet to 17,000 square feet.

A question was asked in respect of the target rental rate per square foot of space at DMIC. The Regeneration Project Delivery Manager undertook to obtain and provide this information to Members of Overview and Scrutiny. It was reported by officers that when the business model for DMIC was tested, there was an estimated  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19.

The report will follow in a supplementary pack for this meeting after it has been published for the meeting of Executive Committee (due for publication on Monday 30 June).

This item includes confidential appendices and may need to be discussed in exempt session.

The Committee considered a report on the Redditch Council Housing Growth Programme. It was recapped that the Executive Committee agreed the Council Housing Growth Programme in January 2017.The Council received funding in this programme through a process of one-for-one receipts when Council houses were sold. This had a requirement that the receipts be spent within five years or else the funds had to be returned to Central Government with interest.

It was stated that a further report in 2018 identified specific sites to be utilised as part of this Programme. The present report identified a number of options, set out as part of the proposed recommendation, to increase the Council’s housing stock to meet the housing growth target of achieving 230 additional units by 2030. These options were explained by the officers present. It was highlighted that the mortgage rescue policy had been removed from the Buy Backs and Acquisitions Policy as it was found that lenders now offered various mortgage relief schemes.

The Council Housing Growth Programme had already delivered 107 units, with a plan in place for delivery of further 56 units. This meant the Council needed to secure an additional 67 units to achieve the target by 2030.

Appendix 1 set out the two packages of sites which were approved for development within the Council Housing Growth Programme, with officers currently working on schemes for the submission of planning applications.

Under the current terms of the Council Housing Growth Programme, there was a capital budget of £3 million per year to spend on developing or purchasing new Council houses. Once this figure was spent, additional funding could not be accessed without agreement from the Executive Committee. Officers were asking for greater flexibility in the Council Housing Growth Programme to enable expenditure over this level where needed and this would help the Council to respond to opportunities on the open market as they arose in a timely manner.

It was being proposed that all properties delivered through the Council Housing Growth Programme be let at social rent levels, subject to viability in respect of the repayment of any capital funding on the given property being repaid within a set period of 30, 40 or 50 years. If this proved not to be viable, then the rent level of 65 per cent of market rent would be applied, and if that was also unviable, then affordable rent level of 80 per cent of market rent would be applied.

When developing new properties, Officers were aiming to install materials and to use design methods that would ensure that those properties achieved an Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) A rating. This would have both a positive impact on climate emissions and help to reduce the energy costs that needed to be met by tenants living in those properties.

Once the report had been presented, Members discussed the following points in detail:

• The risk that the £15 million Council Housing Growth Programme would be spent before the whole programme could be delivered  ...  view the full minutes text for item 20.

The report will follow in a supplementary pack for this meeting after it has been published for the meeting of Executive Committee (due for publication on Monday 30 June).

This item includes confidential appendices and may need to be discussed in exempt session.

The report on the subject of the acquisition of properties was presented and it was explained that the Council had been approached by a developer regarding 12 shared ownership properties that the developer had been unable to sell. The authority had concluded that these properties could be offered as social housing and the cost of this acquisition could be funded through one for one capital receipts. The Council had had the properties valued and would take this information on board in the process. There was a need for the sale to be completed by October 2025, so the timescales for completion were tight.

It was highlighted that the properties did correspond with the type of homes that were in demand on the Council’s housing waiting list, in particular there were over 900 families on the register with a 2-bed need and around 800 families with a 3-bed need. With this mind, the proposal to purchase the 12 properties had been fully supported by the Council’s Allocations Manager.

The properties were currently under construction and were being built to Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) B rating. It was highlighted that the estimated cost of upgrading these properties to EPC A rating was £200 per property and opportunities to upgrade the energy efficiency of the properties would be explored by the Council’s Housing Development Team.

It was noted that Part 2 of the Housing Act 1985 permits local authorities to build/acquire new housing. The properties under consideration fall under a section 106 agreement for the provision of affordable housing and currently comprise the shared ownership element.

It was noted that the developer would need to apply for a deed of variation to the Section 106 to be completed for the Council to purchase properties for social rented accommodation. The variation application would need to be reported to the Planning Committee. The developer would also be responsible for any initial snagging issues as well as during the first 12 months for any defects. Thereafter, a 10-year insurance-backed warranty would apply.

Members questioned why the developer had experienced difficulties with selling these properties as shared ownership units and why other Registered Providers operating locally had not expressed interest. Officers explained that this was part of a national issue for smaller developments. This development had a low number of units which was not considered attractive for many larger developers. Some Registered Providers would also only consider the purchase of properties in particular locations.  However, the Council was keen to ensure that there continued to be a balanced housing market in the Borough and this proposed investment was deemed appropriate in helping to support this ambition.

Members queried whether this purchase would set a precedent in terms of council purchasing properties directly from developers. It was responded that similar purchases had been undertaken by the Council in the past also with similar aim to support social housing.

It was noted that providing the twelve properties at social rent would give an annual rental income of £81,681. The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21.

The draft final report of Fly Tipping and Bulky Waste Task Group is presented for Overview and Scrutiny approval.

The final report of the Fly Tipping and Bulky Waste Task Group was presented to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

The Chair of the Task Group introduced the report and commented in terms of the overall findings that the Council’s bulky collection service was important given that a high proportion of fly tips in Redditch consisted of household waste such as black bags or other household items such as white goods, electrical appliances and green garden waste. It was noted that most of these fly tipping occurred within residential areas. The Task Group felt that the Council provided a competitive and reasonably priced bulky collection service, with further promotion of the service necessary to increase awareness of this offer among Redditch residents.

The Chair of the Task Group stated that the Task Group felt the main action that should be taken to tackle neighbourhood fly tipping remained education and promotion of information relating to responsible disposal of waste.

It was explained that the Task Group’s report detailed a change to arrangements in fly tipping enforcement across the Borough. This responsibility was transferred from the Council to Worcestershire Regulatory Services (WRS) as of 1 June 2024. It was felt that monitoring the effect of this change was important and to this end, the Task Group’s recommendation was for officers from WRS to provide a twice-yearly update to Overview and Scrutiny on fly tipping enforcement work.

During the discussion of the Task Group’s report the following points were raised:

·       Resident survey on fly tipping - A Member expressed disappointment that a resident survey on fly tipping, as detailed within the report, was not progressed by the Task Group in 2024-25. It was clarified that this was a proposal made under the previous (2023-24) Membership of the Task Group and that this survey was not released in that municipal year. Following the elections in May 2024, the membership of the Task Group changed and the 2024-25 (current) Membership of the Task Group, which commissioned this final report, decided not to progress with the survey as it did not consider this the best way forward.

·       Merits and disadvantages of a fly tipping survey – During discussion of the fly tipping survey a Member explained that there seemed to be socio-economic link between people’s ability to afford the bulky collection service and neighbourhood fly tipping. In areas of higher deprivation, there seemed more fly tipping of bulky items such as white goods. With this in mind it was commented that there seemed merit in providing a survey to ascertain residents’ views on the affordability of the bulky collection service and consider residents’ views.

·       Responding to this comment, the Task Group Chair explained that whilst he agreed there appeared a connection between the people’s financial situation and levels of neighbourhood fly tipping, the Task Group established that the Council offered a competitively priced bulky collection service that was significantly cheaper than that offered by many other authorities and that significant effort was made to set prices  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22.

The latest version of the Executive Committee Work Programme (Forward Plan) will be published in a supplementary pack on Tuesday 1 July 2025.

It was requested that the following items from the Executive Work Programme be added to the Overview and Scrutiny Work Programme as pre-scrutiny items:

·       Construction of Redditch Digital Manufacturing and Innovation Centre (DMIC) (currently due for 13 October 2025 Overview and Scrutiny meeting)

·       Leisure Concession Policy Review (currently due for 13 October 2025 Overview and Scrutiny meeting)

·       Auxerre House Refurbishment and Regeneration (date not yet specified but not before November 2025)

·       Quarter 2 Housing Consumer Standards Report (currently due for 24 November 2025 Overview and Scrutiny meeting)

·       Quarter 3 Housing Consumer Standards Report (currently due for 5 February 2026 Overview and Scrutiny meeting)

RESOLVED that

the items detailed above be added to the Overview and Scrutiny Work Programme.

It was confirmed that the Overview and Scrutiny work programme would be updated with items selected for pre-scrutiny under the previous agenda item – the Executive Committee’s Work Programme.

RESOLVED that

the Overview and Scrutiny Work Programme be updated as per the items selected under the previous agenda item above.

a)          Budget Scrutiny Working Group – Chair, Councillor Warhurst

b)          Performance Scrutiny Working Group – Chair, Councillor Warhurst

c)           Fly Tipping and Bulky Waste Task Group – Chair, Councillor Dormer

d)          Post-16 Education Task Group – Chair, Councillor Warhurst

Updates were provided on the meetings of Task Groups and Working Groups as follows:

a)    Budget Scrutiny Working Group – Chair, Councillor Warhurst

On behalf of Councillor Warhurst who had submitted apologies, the Chair of Overview and Scrutiny confirmed that a meeting of Budget Scrutiny meeting took place on Thursday 3 July. There were no recommendations made at that meeting concerning any of the finance reports considered.

b)    Performance Scrutiny Working Group – Chair, Councillor Warhurst

It was confirmed that the only meeting of this group to had been arranged to date for this municipal year was scheduled to take place on 2 October 2025.

c)     Fly Tipping and Bulky Waste Task Group – Chair, Councillor Dormer

The final report of this Task Group was considered and approved at an earlier agenda item.

d)    Post-16 Education Task Group – Chair, Councillor Warhurst

It was noted that further meetings of this Task Group were being arranged.

RESOLVED that

the Task Groups, Short Sharp Reviews and Working Groups Update Reports be noted.

a)          West Midlands Combined Authority (WMCA) Overview and Scrutiny Committee – Council Representative, Councillor Boyd;

b)          West Midlands Combined Authority (WMCA) Transport Delivery Overview and Scrutiny Committee, Council Representative Councillor Fardoe; and

c)           Worcestershire Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee (HOSC) – Council Representative, Councillor Fry.

Update on the meetings of External Scrutiny Bodies were provided by the representatives as follows:

a)    West Midlands Combined Authority (WMCA) Overview and Scrutiny Committee – Council Representative, Councillor Boyd

Councillor Boyd reported that the Committee held a ‘meet and greet’ meeting and that its first formal meeting took place on the morning of 7July 2025.

b)    West Midlands Combined Authority (WMCA) Transport Delivery Overview and Scrutiny – Council Representative, Councillor Fardoe

Councillor Fardoe confirmed he had no matters of relevance to Redditch to report.

c)     Worcestershire Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee (HOSC) – Council Representative, Councillor Fry

Councillor Fry reported that the meeting which was due to take place on 10 July 2025 had been cancelled.

RESOLVED that

the External Scrutiny Bodies updates be noted.

Should it be necessary, in the opinion of the Chief Executive, during the course of the meeting to consider excluding the public from the meeting on the grounds that exempt information is likely to be divulged, it may be necessary to move the following resolution:

“That, under S.100 (A) (4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting for the following matter(s) on the grounds that it/they involve(s) the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in the relevant paragraphs (to be specified) of Part 1 of Schedule 12 (A) of the said Act”.

These paragraphs are as follows:

Subject to the “public interest” test, information relating to:

·         Para 1 – any individual;

·         Para 2 – the identity of any individual;

·         Para 3 – financial or business affairs;

·         Para 4 – labour relations matters;

·         Para 5 – legal professional privilege;

·         Para 6 –  a notice, order or direction;

·         Para 7 – the prevention, investigation or prosecution of crime;

                     and may need to be considered as ‘exempt’.

The meeting remained in the public session throughout and it was not deemed necessary by the Committee to exclude the public and press at any point in the meeting.