Agenda item

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

 

The Chair of Overview and Scrutiny has extended public speaking arrangements especially for this meeting, making a doubled 30 minutes available for registered speakers to have up to three minutes each, including on Microsoft Teams, and with the ability to ‘pool’ minutes together for nominated spokespeople. Registered speakers can also submit statements of up to three minutes’ length in writing, to be read out by an officer at the meeting.

 

Please note there will be no dialogue between the Councillors and the public as part of the Public Speaking arrangements.

 

If you wish to clarify any further points prior to the meeting, please do not hesitate to contact the Democratic Services Team on democratic@bromsgroveandredditch.gov.uk

 

 

The Chair explained to the Committee that four members of the public had registered as Public Speakers and that each had a total of three minutes to address the Committee, under the Council’s Public Speaking Rules,unless they had chosen to ‘share’ their time with the other registered speakers.

 

At the invitation of the Chair, Ms J. Kane addressed the Committee, as follows:

 

“Hello and first of all I would like to thank the Chair for allowing me to speak at this evening’s meeting. My name is Joanna Kane and I am also speaking on behalf of Joni Lovell, who had intended to attend tonight and speak in person but unfortunately is unable to do so.

 

Personally, I have lived in Redditch for more than 25 years and walked in Arrow Valley Country Park on countless occasions. I still remember the first time years ago when I discovered the hub of Arrow Valley Country Park South off Church Lane, commonly known as Ipsley Meadow. The land was given over to the people of Redditch, as public open space for recreational purposes for the then new town, by Redditch Development Corporation.

I was stunned that we had such a beautiful open area on our doorstep, and I don’t think it’s possible for anyone to fully appreciate it until they’ve seen it for themselves. It’s the closest part of Arrow Valley Country Park to local communities and it’s a well-known viewing point in Redditch. It’s important to emphasise that this is not vacant, unused land; in fact it’s very well used for recreational activities including dog walking, kite flying, running, cycling and paragliding.

 

Over the last 18 months, the importance of recreational public open space for both our physical and our mental wellbeing has been heightened because of the coronavirus pandemic and the resulting lockdown. This is a vital piece of land for local people to enjoy, free of charge.

 

We know that the council has to make a decision about where to locate a new cemetery.

 

Eight months ago, Councillor Matt Dormer, the leader of the council, promised the people of Redditch that all 26 potential sites would be re-examined. He said: “I will ensure the examination process that I am undertaking personally is fully transparent so the public can understand the problems the council is facing on this issue, and I will ensure the council works with the public on any final option to ensure we mitigate concerns and provide the best possible burial site.”

 

What work – which Councillor Dormer said would be significant – was subsequently done to deliver on his promise to re-examine each site?

 

Why have only three sites been put forward as options in today’s report? And why was the application for change of use of this part of Arrow Valley Country Park South submitted to the planning committee before the options went to the Executive?

 

The 23 sites that were rejected include Edgioake Lane, where there is already a cemetery which could be extended by purchasing an adjoining field, and Sillins Lane, which wasn’t followed up because the owner didn’t want to sell the land. However, the council has the power to apply for a compulsory purchase order if there is a compelling case in the public interest.

 

Also, an area of land at Brockhill Drive is shown in Appendix 1 as fitting the criteria for a new cemetery, but has been discounted with no explanation. Why have these three sites not been brought to the table?

 

And what consultation, if any, has been held with those places of worship where the first part of the funeral service would be held, before the whole cortege travels to the new cemetery?

 

We do know that more than 800 people felt so strongly about the planning application that they took the time to write individual objections online, but they were all ignored. Why was this the only opportunity people have had to comment on the future of a much-loved public recreational open space, and why were residents not consulted before the planning application was made?

What work was being done to involve local people in a full, open public consultation before we went into lockdown, particularly in the year leading up to the planning application first being made in August 2020?

 

Indeed, some may say that lockdown was the ideal time to submit such a controversial application to planning, with the likelihood that few people would find out about letters to neighbouring properties or read one paper notice on a bus stop.

 

We feel this council is making decisions behind closed doors, only paying lip service to consulting residents after these decisions have been made. Those who don’t support the official narrative are ignored.

 

This isn’t public consultation and leaves residents angry, disappointed and disenfranchised. Is it any wonder that more and more people have so little trust in politicians?

 

The development of a cemetery on part of Arrow Valley Country Park seems like a land grab and sets a dangerous precedent for the future of the whole park.

 

We are asking the scrutiny committee to consider whether the officer’s report before you tonight really has re-examined all 26 sites, as was promised by Councillor Dormer, and has properly investigated all the viable options. Why were no business plans drawn up for Sillins Lane, Brockhill Drive and Edgioake Lane, and why were possible sites that could be surplus to requirements, such as golf courses, not investigated?

 

We are conscious that the council Executive meeting is taking place this Wednesday and are asking the Executive to do the following:

 

·       Firstly, allow a further period of time for officers to go back to the drawing board to investigate alternative sites, rather than rushing this monumental decision through in 48 hours’ time. With the given burial rates, only an extra half an acre of ground at the Abbey cemetery, which can be found under the expanse of redundant tarmac and border extension, would gain the council three years to have a new cemetery ready. This would take the urgency out of the decision.

·       Secondly, instruct officers to revisit alternative options and in particular develop business plans for expanding the existing cemetery at Edgioake Lane, and using land at Sillins Lane and Brockhill Drive.

·       Thirdly and finally, review all the public comments on the planning application, which has to date been the only opportunity for residents to have their say on the future of the hub of Arrow Valley Country Park South.”

 

A written statement was read out to the Committee on behalf of Mr P. Bladon, as follows:

 

"I'm considering all land, north and north-west of the current Abbey Cemetery.

 

Is there any hard evidence that Redditch Borough Council has ever considered the purchase, (or if necessary, the compulsory purchase), of land north and/or north-west of the current Abbey Cemetery?

 

This includes both sides of Weights Lane, and in Dagnell End Road.

 

I am of course aware of the relatively recent housing development for example, Odell Street.

 

And the areas suggested, includes land in Bromsgrove District.

It has been suggested, when the need for more burial space was discussed over ten years ago, that these possible sites, or ideas, were 'brushed aside' and ignored; and Bromsgrove District Council wasn't even asked.

 

Thank you."

 

Councillor Brunner, who was in attendance (via Microsoft Teams), addressed the Committee and then presented the following statement:

 

“Good evening and thank you Chair. I do apologise that I am not actually there in person.

 

I am respectfully asking that the Overview and Scrutiny Committee consider the following recommendation to send to the Executive Committee sitting on Wednesday. That the recommendation to make a decision on burial provision be deferred until this Council has had a full qualitative and quantitative cost benefit analysis report produced. The reasons I ask you to consider the recommendation are as follows:

 

The report does not include a qualitative and quantitative cost benefit analysis. The report is riddled with inconsistencies. The budget estimates of time and development costs are not substantiated, and this has skewed the consideration of the Abbey Extension by cost alone. There is no evidence in this report of Redditch’s Birth and Death statistics being factored into the report. The transport information is factually incorrect. There is a bus service from Redditch Bus Station which stops on the Birmingham Road outside of the Abbey Stadium. Several buses which go to Birmingham use this route. The bus service to Icknield Street Drive is operated every two hours and does not run during school start and pick up times. The 800 plus objectors have made their feelings pretty clear and I am sure that other speakers have or will eloquently speak and put forward more salient arguments. Please do seriously consider this recommendation.

 

Thank you Chair.”

 

At the invitation of the Chair, Mr. I. Pickles addressed the Committee, as follows:

 

“We are here tonight to do two things:

 

To endorse the Lord Chalk’s blue-breasted cavalry of a Planning Committee and their 8 to 1 debagging of the lone, red-breasted knight valiant in November.

 

And on this momentous tonight of 13 December 2021 we are here to rubber stamp The Birkinshaw ‘Fag-End’ of a report by a 7 to 2 majority – perhaps 7 to 3 if we all vote with our stated beliefs!

 

We are also here to witness our noble Oversight and Scrutiny Committee – that bastion of democracy that protects our public purse – crush a ‘Jewel of the Redditch Crown’ given to us by NTDC, donkey’s years ago, before most of you were born. This was a 1970’s bequest in perpetuity to our work/life balance here in Redditch.

 

In short a ironic summary:

 

“We come to bury a local treasure to ensure that our dear departed can live on!”

 

My colleagues have given eloquent scrutinization to what is in The Birkinshaw Biopic (HOLD IT UP AND/OR BIN IT) so I will concentrate on what is not in it!

 

Why was Ipsley Meadow wrenched from the learned list of 25 sites to be the answer to the cemetery problem when it had already been ruled unsuitable for burial provision by both Borough and County consultants?

 

Why was the derogatory reference to the work of a ‘former planning consultant’ used to dismiss his 30-year plus of experience and rubbish his Abbey Extension plan as a ‘waterlogged white elephant.’ At the same time, RBC’s own cunning plan uses enlarged areas in different locations with dodgy water- level recordings and extravagant Boris-type numbers to dump the obvious solution!

 

Why has RBC gone back to ‘in the box thinking’ to ignore the science of burial technology which will make in-ground internment obsolete within 25 years and leave only traditional religious burials to take place. This will reduce Redditch in-ground average of 160 per year to a distant memory!

 

Why have we not consulted our local Islamic brothers and their Imams from our 3 mosques on this one? I guarantee they would, like many other towns in the land, be ready and willing to privatise their burial provision at a suitable but smaller location?

 

That great founder of the Blue Coats, Benjamin Disraeli, maintained that there are ‘lies, damn lies and Statistics.’

 

The report in question may have some economy of the truth but no lies and damn lies and definitely no statistics!

 

Where is the attempt to model birth & death rates in Redditch going forward and factor in the advances in burial science (mentioned already) and how vaporisation and de compostation, floating memorial gardens, high rise burial pods and even the Elon Musk solution vision of burial in Space!

 

Where is the evidence that the Abbey Site extension plan is viable and not flawed and the probability that the Ipsley Meadow slope will leach out burial chemicals and require additional expense of DE leaching barriers to prevent burial slippage into the river Arrow?

 

Where is the acknowledgement that this rammed through proposal to bury the meadow has caused the biggest citizen protest- 850 letters plus press, TV features and Social Media posts - since the days of ‘save the Alex?’

 

So we are back to where this protest started for me…TRAFFIC

 

Why are our Council Leaders deaf to the protests at the inevitable presence of the RBC bulldozers bashing in the new cemetery entrance into the narrow Ipsley Church Lane. This lane already services 500 residences and their vehicles, office toing and froing and DON’T FORGET that Sir Chalky’s Planning Committee will be granting some developer permission to create 2 years of site -development chaos in Ipsley Church Lane as the old GKN site is raised to the ground to prepare for an estate of ‘des ressies!’

 

Come on now O&S members, remember the words of John Maynard Keynes, the father of modern economics’ who said:

 

“When the facts change - I change my mind”

 

He also said…  ironically:

 

In the long term, we are all dead!

 

Finally, I would like to thank Madam Chair for the opportunity to speak to her committee tonight and say to her:

 

“if you pull this one off tonight, Sir Kier of Kensington will make you a Dame!”

 

(After this item the meeting stood adjourned from 19:03 to 19:08.)