Decisions

The Leader advised that the report in respect of land at Upper Norgrove had been referred back to the Executive Committee as a decision on this matter was an Executive function.  Following a detailed debate in respect of the report at the previous meeting of the Executive Committee, a formal presentation from Officers had also not been requested for this meeting.  The resolutions detailed in the report were subsequently proposed by Councillor Matthew Dormer and seconded by Councillor Gemma Monaco.

During consideration of this item, Councillor Joe Baker proposed the following amendment to the resolutions detailed in the report, which was seconded by Councillor Bill Hartnett.

“The Council should not sell the land at Upper Norgrove and instead should build social housing at the site.”

However, Officers advised that an amendment to a resolution could not be completely different to the original proposal.  As that was the case in this instance, Officers advised that this was not a valid amendment and could not be debated as such.  Whilst this advice was accepted at the meeting, it was subsequently noted that there had been a desire amongst some Members to highlight that there was an alternative option available to the Council for the use of this land.

Consideration was given to the potential for social housing to be developed on other parcels of land currently owned by Redditch Borough Council.  It was suggested that there might be more appropriate opportunities to explore the development of social housing on some of this land located elsewhere in the Borough, subject to the outcomes of the planning process.

RESOLVED that

1)          the Council dispose of the land at Upper Norgrove site to Bloor Homes Ltd on the basis of the offer received; and

2)          authority be delegated to the Head of Legal Democratic and Property Services and the Section 151 Officer to implement the disposal.

The Portfolio Holder for Finance and Enabling presented the Non-Domestic Rates Discretionary Relief Policy report for the Executive Committee’s consideration.

Members were advised that Section 47 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 provided the Council with powers to award discretionary business rates relief.  In 2023/24 the Council had awarded:

·             £283,000 of discretionary relief (of which £240,000 was provided to Rubicon Leisure Limited); and

·             £2,475.000 of Section 32 Funded Relief (Retail, Hospitality and Leisure support granted by the Government).

This policy had not changed apart from when relief could be awarded, which would change as at the 1^st April 2024 and was now the responsibility of the Council to set.

The backdating of relief before the current year would now only be considered where:

·             The application for relief was made or determined within six months of the end of that financial year; and

·             Where a hereditament was entered into the rating list for the first time and an application for relief was made within three months of the hereditament entering the rating list.

This protected the Council from being asked to back-fund changes for multiple previous years.

Members were asked to note that the £283,000 of discretionary relief was shared within the wider County rates retention scheme.

Following the presentation of the report, Members questioned whether the proportion of relief costs covered by different organisations was discretionary, and therefore determined locally, or set in accordance with legal requirements.  Officers confirmed that the Council tended to follow Government guidelines in respect of this matter.

RECOMMENDED that

the amended Non-Domestic Rates Discretionary Relief policy is approved and adopted from 1^st April 2024.

The Portfolio Holder for Finance and Enabling presented the Pay Policy Statement 2024/25 for the Executive Committee’s consideration.

Members were informed that the Localism Act required the Council to produce a Pay Policy Statement on a yearly basis for approval by full Council.  The policy needed to set out:

·             The remuneration of Chief Officers.

·             The remuneration of the lowest paid employees which was £22,366 a year at the Council.  Members were asked to note that the Chief Executive’s pay should be no more than 20 times this and in Redditch the Chief Executive was paid 6.3 times the level of the lowest paid.

·             The relationship between the remuneration of Chief Officers and employees who were not Chief Officers.

The Council was responsible for setting the policy relating to recruitment, pay, terms and conditions and severance.  In relation to these points, Members were asked to note the following:

·       The governance around the recruitment of Chief Officers was set out in the policy.

·       The Council did not provide bonuses or Performance Related Pay.

·       However, progression through the Scale Points was subject to satisfactory performance.

·       Termination rules were detailed in the policy.

Following the presentation of the report, Members referred to the staff grades that were Hay Evaluated and questions were raised about whether there was full compliance with the policy, including through statutory officer appointments made at Council meetings.  Officers confirmed that the Council was compliant with rules and that there was a legitimate role for Council to debate and agree senior officer pay grades.

Reference was also made to the existing interim arrangements that were in place in terms of some of the Council’s statutory officer posts and questions were raised about the timescales for the recruitment of permanent staff into these positions.  The Executive Committee was informed that a decision would need to be taken on the exact timing of the recruitment processes in 2024 for permanent members of senior officer staff.  In the meantime, there were postholders in place, including on an interim basis, in the authority’s statutory positions.

RECOMMENDED that

the Pay Policy 2024/25 be approved.

The Climate Change Manager presented the annual review of the Carbon Reduction Strategy.

Members were advised that when the Carbon Reduction Strategy was approved by Members in autumn 2022, it had been agreed that there should be an annual review of the strategy and the Council’s progress with achieving carbon reduction targets.  Following the Council’s declaration of a climate emergency, the authority was aiming to achieve net zero by 2040.  The aims and objectives detailed in the strategy would enable the Council to address this objective.

In terms of the targets detailed in the report, seven had already commenced or been completed whilst four remained to be started.  In particular, there had been a significant amount of work undertaken in respect of Local Authority Delivery Phase 3 (LAD 3), to retrofit properties in the private sector for low income households.  The Town Hall improvement works that had already been undertaken as well as a reduction of 41 per cent in car mileage for staff employed by Redditch Borough Council had also had a significant impact on the progress that had been achieved to date.

During consideration of this item, reference was made to a recommendation on this subject that had been proposed at a meeting of the Performance Scrutiny Working Group held in January 2024 and endorsed by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee at a meeting held on 1^st February 2024.  The recommendation from Overview and Scrutiny proposed the following:

“That tree and hedgerow planting be added to the list of performance measures in the Carbon Reduction Strategy.”

The recommendation was proposed by Councillor Bill Hartnett and seconded by Councillor Joe Baker.

Members subsequently debated the recommendation from Overview and Scrutiny in detail and in doing so commented on the following:

·             The rationale underpinning the recommendation.

·             The extent to which it would be feasible to include a measure focusing on the number of trees and hedgerows planted in the Borough.

·             The focus of the Carbon Reduction Strategy and action plan on action that could be taken by the Council and the fact that the Council could not control or accurately measure tree planting in the private sector.

·             The potential for tree and hedgerow planting to be applied as a condition when the Council granted planning consent to developers.

·             The fact that the Council had no control over the location in which trees would be planted by developers.

·             The need for the Council to rely on developers to volunteer information about the trees and hedgerows planted in the Borough.  Members noted that not all developers would share this information.

·             The problem of Ash Die Back and the number and range of tree species that were being planted in Redditch to replace trees in the Borough that had that disease.

·             The potential for the Council to demonstrate that it was leading by example, should measures in respect of tree and hedgerow planting be included in the Carbon Reduction Strategy’s action plan.

·             The positive impact that tree and hedgerow planting could have on biodiversity in the Borough. 

·             The significant number of trees that were already in situ within the Borough.

At the end of these discussions, Members noted that the Council could aim to roll into the process information about the numbers of trees and hedgerows planted on Council land as well as information on this subject supplied voluntarily by developers.  However, as this would not be a mandatory requirement of developers, Members commented that this could not be made into a formal measure in the Carbon Reduction Strategy and action plan.  On this basis, the recommendation was withdrawn.

Consideration was also given to the measure in the strategy focusing on cutting the Council’s paper waste by offering papers electronically.  Concerns were raised about this measure, with some Members commenting that many Councillors preferred to be able to refer to Committee agenda packs in paper form only and concerns were raised that restrictions on access to paper copies of agenda packs could be discriminatory.  However, it was noted that the choice remained available to Members to continue to receive paper copies of agenda packs and Members were asked to note that this measure applied generally to all Council services, not just to Council and Committee meetings.

RECOMMENDED that

1)          Council endorse the findings of this annual review of the Carbon Reduction Strategy; and

2)          Council accept the proposal to align Carbon Reduction Strategy measures to the Climate Action Scorecard into an accessible performance dashboard.

The Development Services Manager presented the Playing Pitch and Built Facilities Strategies for Members’ consideration.

The Executive Committee was advised that, following approval of the Council’s Leisure Strategy in autumn 2022, there were two outstanding strategies that needed to be considered by Members; the Built Facilities and Playing Pitch Strategies.  The Playing Pitch Strategy reviewed access to playing pitches in the Borough.  A lot of information had been gathered from both local and national sources which had informed the content of the strategies.  In addition, Sport England had signed off the strategies prior to consideration by the Executive Committee.

Members subsequently discussed the strategies and in doing so noted that the Football Federation had contacted the Leader with regard to this matter and had expressed their eagerness for the strategies to be implemented.  Reference was also made to the positive contribution that participation in sports on playing pitches could have on the health of people living in the Borough.

During consideration of this item, reference was made to the potential for the strategies to have included information about play parks and concerns were raised about the future position of some parks in the Borough.  However, it was noted that this did not form part of the focus of these particular strategies.

RESOLVED that

1)          The Built Facility Strategy and the Playing Pitch Strategy are endorsed; and

2)          Delegated authority be granted to the Head of Planning, Regeneration and Leisure following consultation with the lead Portfolio Holder for Leisure to implement the following recommendations:

Built Facility Strategy: 1, 3, 5, 8, 9,11,12,13,14,
Playing Pitch Strategy: 1.1, 2.1, 3.1, 3.2, 5.1, 6.1, 6.3, 7.1, 7.2, 8.1, 8.3, 8.5