Thank you uh good evening everyone um welcome to uh policy and resources uh the festive version of policy and resources um I’ll just go through the usual Preamble and then we’ll crack on with the meeting um this is a public meeting and members of the public and press are
Permitted to report on the proceedings reporting includes filming photography making an audio recording and providing commentary on proceedings please note this meeting is recorded and streamed live these recordings are published on the relevant page of the council’s website by choosing to attend this public meeting you are deemed to have
Given your consent to being filmed or recorded and for any footage to be broadcast or published if the alarm sounds the premises must be evacuated immediately do not collect do not spend time collecting personal belongings all emergency Escape Routes are clearly signed once you have left the building
The assembly point is in the High Street opposite the Guild Hall members and other speakers are reminded to use their microphone when speaking okay um item one on the agenda appointment of substitutes Julie thank you very much welcome both okay uh item two Declarations of Interest okay uh Lynn uh Robin and
Steven um just for absolute transparency that um shrub Hill is within my County Council division okay thank you jba okay thank you Robin um chair as chair of ped I’m also on the shrub Hill steering committee thank you very much and Stephen yeah item six does have a
Refer to waren Parish Council and I’m a waren parish counselor excellent thank you uh item three public representations thank you minutes of the last meeting I’ll just go through them Page by Page and then pause at the end uh for any comment or questions page one 2 3 4 four five six and
Seven anything there anybody wants to make reference too okay happily signed that uh the income management um uh minutes I think I was the only one present there who is in the room tonight so I’ll sign those off uh at the end of the meeting right good thanks um item six draft mtfp
Shane thank you chair even evening counselors and um uh well here we are again in terms of a budget for another year um we we’ve just very recently had some uh news about the settlement which I which I’ll take you through but just in overall terms by way of introducing the report
Its primary purpose is to set the council tax base a recommendation to I’m asking if you’re happy to approve that so that the precepting bodies can get on and set their Council taxes for the coming year then uh as normal this is a sort of the prelim minary part it is a
Draft budget this is the first stage of the budget cycle already so we’ll go through all of our committees in January and look at this in more detail give you plenty of time to explore the various elements of it and then come back to uh Committee in early February to set the
Final version of the budget which will then go on to council for agreement um in terms of some of the highlights uh that we want to draw your attention first of all it seems a bit perverse to say but if you look at the table on uh
On the the paragraph 5.3 on page 17 I’m delighted to say that the force gas for gas budget Gap is 378,000 in the context of what this time last year was a budget gap of 2.25 million that is a tremendous achievement which everyone’s putting an
Awful lot of hard work to get us to this stage so I’m extremely grateful for everybody for participating in that and recognizing the seriousness of the issue um as you will see as we go forward obviously that then increases again um the increase up to 1.2
Million is is what 900,000 or so and it’s primarily driven by expectations around increasing inflation and salary costs and also the fact that some of the things that we’ve put in this year relatively shortterm like increased interest rates which need to be on wound and various things like that so there’s
Some shortterm elements which has brought us down to the 378,000 which which we’ll need to reconsider as we go into next year so although we’ve made huge progress there is still work to do it’s an ongoing uh piece of work to try and get us uh to a position where our
Income and our our costs are increasing in in a relatively uh proportionate way which I’m sure we will do in the fullness of time um having said that uh there a couple of things which are included in assumptions there which we just need to be clear about the first is
That we’ve assumed a 2.99% increase in council tax which is at paragraph 5.11 um the government’s settlement yesterday have confirmed that that is available and they take that into account when assessing core spending power so You’ have seen this headline that there is a 6.5% increase in core
Spending power across the board in terms of this Council that amounts to 4.8% so it’s bit lower than than some other councils are getting but that assumes the 2.99% increase in council tax already so if we don’t do that then the amount of our core spending power won’t
Go up by quite so much the other bit that we need to agree in February is the overall uh income inflation which we’ve allowed for and that 6% is across the board the general figure the income management committee will will receive the details of that at its January
Meeting and recommend those on to policy resources just to confirm that at paragraph 5.15 that includes an assumption that that 6% applies to co parking charges as well as all other income uh changes uh the rest I’ll leave you to consider but just want to draw your
Attention to a couple of uh things which are coming up in the future which we need to take into account so we just commented on these really which is uh section 1.8 called future challenges on page 27 and it’s just really to highlight the fact that there are there are you know
Things which we haven’t yet been able to take into account because we don’t really know what these might look like in the future but we’re aware for example that the Leisure contract is due for Renewal and at the moment we receive income 450,000 or so net from that contract
It’s unlikely that in the future we’ll continue to receive that income when we come to the renewal is you know we might actually move to a position where um we are paying the contractor as many many other Leisure contractors do so that’s something that’s coming along the lines
Which we’ve got to think about uh we know that we’ve got to refurbish the crematorium and replace the cremators and we’ll hear a report about that later on on this agenda but that’s going to be significant cost and there will be a period of income loss while we’re doing
That so something we’ll have to think about in the future we know that the government has committed to food waste collection we don’t yet know what the implications of that will be so we haven’t built that into the medium-term financial plan except in the capital program where we assumed a million
Pounds of purchases per equipment which we expect to be funded by government but we’ll wait and see in respect of the scholar arts project we we’re an Arts Center project we we’re anticipating that there might be be some period where we’ve got to fund from revenue that activity once
It’s up and running just to get it onto a proper footing so something to consider there we’ve heard quite a bit about Ash dieback recently there’s we know that’s a growing issue as yet we’ve not set aside significant sums to deal with that and it’s something that we
Will have to attend to in in in the fullness of time and then finally we’ve done quite a bit of work on our air quality action plan I’m sure there are going to be some commitments following from that in due course as well there may be other pressures which we’ve not
Yet taken into account these are ones which we know are coming but haven’t been included in medium-term financial planners yet so just wanted to draw your attention to those and then finally just uh one last bit which we’ll need to do in February is agree the change in
Reserves at the moment we’ve got reasonable position in terms our business rate risk reserves so we’ve got enough to cover that 378,000 Gap if we need to draw on reserves to do that but we have also been looking at some of the existing reserves and reviewing whether we we need those and
Appendix 4 uh on page 37 runs through a list of reserves we think we can be released in total that’s 574 th000 but that will actually be required to fund the voluntary redundancy exercise that we did during this year so it’s not going to free up money to be available
For to spending on other things but it will mean mean that those commitments we’ve made can be met from reserves without having to draw on on other Revenue impacts okay so there are a few pressures coming up uh much to do between now and February but uh all the
Committees will have an opportunity to engage in that process ask more detailed questions and you may have tonight but if there are any any things that immediately you’d like um to know more about then Mark and I will be happy to try and answer them thank you Shane
Thanks very much uh questions or comment please oh beg ofon margerie thank you chair um I just to say what a great achievement it is to bring down um our the budget Gap from 2 and a half million to to 378 um I’ve also got a few questions
Um in appendix 2 um we’ve got com Gardens Institute facility area and I think we’re going to reconsider that it has come up in a recent meeting uh thank you through you chair we we have uh when a number of um items were put in the capital program as as a
Reserve to be reserving the capital program always subject to a detail business case so that funding won’t be released until we’ve had that detailed business committee and um is is excuse me I’m inan I’m might just for being thick but something I that I struggle with in appendix 4 which is which is
Why for example with the ward Recovery Fund it’s 15303 at the end of March 24 and exactly the same at the end of March 27 um through you chair that that’s the member Recovery Fund isn’t it well that was the amount which was left over um
Is that right not yeah so that was the amount that was left over so we’re not anticipating adding anything to that so the balance the the the table shows the balance we’re expecting at 31 324 and then we try to take into account any known commitments from that balance so
We don’t we don’t Nick that and and forget about things which are forthcoming or in some cases where extra money is added into the balance every year so it goes back up so we’re not expecting any of that 30 um how much is it 15,33 to be used it was it’s already
It’s already been assumed that that would be released back into budgets because it was not to spend at the year end so it’s it’s available to be released uh that not available to spend so the 15303 was what’s left of um the balance previously the previous year
It’s the previous year is underspend so in effect is due to be released it’s not available for spending so it’s it’s there and we can use it yeah there is the balance that’s remaining in this financial year needs to be spent to everybody by the 31st of March or else
You will lose it that’s the way that we run it final we should all make sure we spend this year’s thank you okay I’ve got Steven yes um thank you very much for this for this paper yes I am pleased um we are going to be okay for for the coming Financial
Year with the savings you have made um I must have make our group if we’ve been in control of the city council would probably think slightly differently but but we are where we are I just have um a simple question really when it comes to um two things first of all the aak
My Das back back contingency we don’t know what that final figure is going to be yet but are we likely to see some contingency in the actual budget when we vote for that in February and also secondly um I noticed you’re talking about your um your income streams and
You talk about your car parking and you’re talking about um a 6% increase in um parking charges next year assuming that is that is indeed the case we are giving our um competitors quite an advantage but actually telling them that we’re going to be increasing our charges
By 6% whereas I guess the likes of crown gate and NCP and that won’t be make won’t be letting it publicly known what they’re going to be doing to the car parking charges so just be have to be mindful that we ar the only car park
Operator in in the city and if we want to um achieve the revenue streams we expect to do obviously do we take into account um comp competitive pressures that might drive down our potential anticipated income through you chair um Lloyd might like to add more in terms of the car
Parking but our our assessment in terms of our competitiv our car parking charges are very low compared to them so uh we we we don’t think that the in the increase of 6% is is is is you know it’s purely in line with inflation is UN reasonable and but but just to reiterate
This is the draft budget so um it’s a matter for members to decide at the February committee whether they actually want to go ahead with that or not it’s a proposal and it’s just built in in order to illustrate the position thank you I’m sorry Steen can
You remind me of the first question Ash back yes certainly um there is a report going to Committee in January and and if that then is is sufficient to enable us to calculate a reasonable Reserve then that’s what we’ll be put forward I’ve got Pat next thank you
Chair a few things really one on page 18 which is the cost of making bids and we know there’s quite a large cost of making bids in terms of Staff time and possible consultancy fees and so forth and there’s some um idea that we might actually move towards cost recovery
Possibly even full cost recovery I wonder how sympathetic you think the government is going to be towards that so that’s one thing um whether or not we can integrate it within a bid uh the increase in development management fees is very welcome uh and I I do note the
Staggering rise in the audit fee which is absolutely appalling 107k additional uh expenditure I mean is there any way of negotiating that downwards um through you chair on the first on the first point p i mean the as we’ve seen that drift in terms of capital funding over the last couple of
Years the government has built more and more into a revenue element into that to allow for project capacity and also they do tend to front up um funding for the development of Bids to do in terms of that um so I think that’s that’s that should be okay I mean the key thing is actually to be able to in position to continue to obtain grants and so we need to build up the capacity to do that and of course
You’re always looking at new burdens funding and short-term funding which makes that difficult but it is a is a challenge that we’ve been working on in terms of the rising audit fee the simple answer is no there is no no no opportunity to negotiate that the process that has that has been played
Out in public over the last two years or so is that many of those providing audit Services have come to the conclusion that they can’t deliver to a standard that they expect within the fee rates which were set five four or five years ago when the psaa was established um
They have come to recognize that those scale fees were too low the set too low they don’t allow that so it’s been a long process of negotiating with the firms as to what they I think is a reasonable price to pay we bought into that process as a as a council um uh
About a year or so ago now we had the opportunity then to try and Source our own Auditors if we wanted to but 99% of councils across the country bought into this negotiation process so we are we have to accept what’s what’s on the table I’m afraid is such a staggering amount that
It’s difficult to understand understand how they could be so far astray in their costing I I don’t mean we are I mean the the companies that do this okay thank thank you any further questions or comment Lindner I mean the answer to that question is bring back the audit
Commission isn’t it and it was a mistake on the part of government to Outsource what is an important Public Service function um thank you for the presentation and and you know for all the work um that sits sits behind this um to be clear in terms of the decision that we’re making
At committee today it’s to sign off what our council tax base is isn’t it so that we can work out our budget um as well as the the parish councils and and the County Council um I mean having know received exactly what our settlement is it it just
Illustrates um central government is not funding local government fairly um and you know we we’re kind of living hand to mouth and and the the amount of money that we get is not related to need is not related to the services that we provide um I’m sure we’ll all continue to do the
Best that we can and hope that our our residents don’t blame us for what it is that we’re we’re faced with in terms of the the budget and the numbers thank you can just please do if I absolutely in terms of the audit commission you know I I wholeheartedly agree except for
The fact that if the audient commission hadn’t been abolished I wouldn’t be here still be working for them so it’s an ill wind as they say um in terms of the the the last point about overall funding uh you know the core message has been there’s an average increase of 6.5% core
Spending power in this last year but since that concept of core spending power was introduced in 20156 our total increase over those years is 6% now if if if inflation had applied they’d simply taken the grant as it was in 20156 and applied inflation across the board we that would have risen by
25% we’d be 3.1 million P better off than we are now so you can see the realterm cut in in funding and uh just running through the columns of figures which have been provided today that some authorities in the country have received increases over that period of 50% as
Opposed to 6% and what’s the you know this is down to new homes bonus and and and sort of different funding there is one po Authority has actually gone down by minus 1% over that period so we’re not the worst of but but it does just
Show that the system at the moment isn’t reflecting need it’s not it’s not geared to need it’s just rolling forward a baseline which was established some time ago and there is a need for radical reform and that’s one of the reasons why we continue to keep back 1.4 million in
Our business race Reserve we need to keep that because at some point they’re going to have to reset this system and that’s the extent of the growth over over and above what government as provided at that time so we just need to keep our eye on that um but yeah the
Overall conclusion is is system isn’t fair it doesn’t it doesn’t it isn’t based on needs but it it is what it is okay thank you any further questions or comment Helena thank you chair I just got wanted because I’m the new kid on the Block here having only been elected in May I’m
Just trying to understand um aend 3 could you just clarify where it’s got disabled uh band a is this number of properties where residents have applied for a discretion to their council tax because they’ve got a separate room for a disabled occupant or can you just clarify those figures in in that column
Not quite sure what it means through you chair I’d have to look in detail what the definition is but yes it’s for a certain category of um Council taxpayers who’ve had special circumstances that apply so yes they can apply for it I’ll get you an answer I’ll
Have to have to look it up in detail don’t know off the top of my head but but yes it’s for a specific category of people um that’s Mark you okay Karen thank you chair it’s just a um a clarification or little question um in um appendix 4 we’ve got 26 Street
Signage and it says that all works to date have been funded from base budget does that mean in the future the funding for replacing worn and damaged Street signage will continue to come from base budget and is that enough are we replacing our worn and damaged Street
Signage quickly enough to keep up with the wear and tear of our street signs in the city thank you Um the work that’s been done so far has been done out of the annual revenue budget that was a specific Reserve that was created two or three years ago as a member request um but it hasn’t been necessary to use it because the work has been needed has been done from the annual
Revenue budget hence we’re in the position now where we can afford to release that Reserve no does that therefore mean that we’re we’ve got enough money in this budget to continue our work for replacing damaged and worn out signs based on the demand we currently see so that’s requests for
Members or proactive sort of replacement assigns then we’re currently covering that from from a revenue budget if there was an influx of requests that we didn’t foresee um then possibly we would need to we would need to look elsewhere where current demand is being met through the revenue budget thank you Lloyd any
Further margerie um I I will there be some um coms or press release at a suitable stage explaining that you know the situation that we don’t have enough funds to do everything we want to do uh through chair yes Rob’s drafted an email which is sitting for me to look at
First thing in the morning excellent thank you and okay I’m not seeing anyone else um just excuse me from my perspective um as Steven has alluded to there were details that we uh we were in in disagreement with but I think what the overriding thing is is is
That we’ve approached as a council this uh situation with a ser serious head and I think that um is to be commended uh so as chairman of this particular committee I thank everyone for that um so I’m not looking around the room no one else wishes to comment so I’m going
To take the the recommendations I I mean they are quite lengthy uh but we we we know in essence what we’re what we’re looking to um approve here uh so if we take 1. one 2 3 and four um if does anybody need any clarification are we happy to
Go right so show of hands please are those who willing to accept those that’s Carri thank you very much um to item seven Community infrastructure Levy draft charging Schedule H dun sorry chair I’ll just um just start us off whilst um our head of planning comes to the table so um the
Reason that this is on your agenda tonight committee is that we are seeking a committee mandate to start a consultation on the proposed new charging shedule for our community infrastructure Levy this is across the three south wester councils um the community infrastructure Levy charging schedule effectively forms part of the
Council’s planning policy framework ordinarily uh it would be considered by the place economic development committee and ultimately signed off by full C which it needs to be uh because of the timing of our committee cycle and the fact that we’re expecting to be in examination on the local plan um early
Earlyish next year we were Keen to get a mandate from committee to commence the consultation and this was the best opportunity to do that then commence the consultation uh and the matter needs to be reported back to full Council in any event so that’s why it’s here tonight
Chair thank you Sean anything you want to add at this point Duncan or you good questions okay thank you chair through you just to add a little bit of of detail um as I’m sure members are aware um Community infrastructure Levy is Justified based on a gap in infrastructure funding and
Community infrastructure Levy receipts are intended to bridge this Gap and support uh development up to 2041 in the case of the new draft charging schedule um development that is either allocated or is windfall Development coming through in the future as part of the review of the south wester Shar
Development plan um the review has identified uh the potential to increase Community infrastructure Levy rates and those are set out on page nine of the draft charging schedule and the recommendation is to apply the new rates Geographic graphically and you’ll also see in the draft charging schedule on
Page8 uh that this is explained with reference to a map so whereas at the moment our current dra our current charging schedule is a series of flat rates across the whole of south wester the recommendation informed by work that our viability Consultants have undertaken on our behalf is proposing a geographical split
Between what their researchers identified as a higher development value and a lower development value area that’s shown on that uh sill charging map by the red and the green [Applause] shading the proposed rates set out in the table on page nine are broken down into different typ types of development so
For example Green Field and Brownfield um schemes of less than nine units schemes of uh 10 units or more um it ALS is also broken down uh relating to higher density flatted development on Brownfield land purpose-built student accommodation age restricted uh sheltered housing schemes Extra Care or Assisted Living schemes and you’ll see
At the bottom of the table uh of particular note strategic sites that are allocated in the emerging plan or are schemes of over a thousand units would be zero rated um that may initially be cause for concern but it’s worth noting that the Strategic sites in our current development plan particularly the urban
Extensions are already zero rated that is simply a reflection that the infrastructure costs associated with that scale of development are so huge that they can’t be expected to carry the normal section 106 costs and Community infrastructure Levy they would simply be unviable to the point where they’re
Unlikely to come forward and that’s the critical test to set community infrastructure Levy rates too high would risk developers developing elsewhere in the country and therefore we wouldn’t see the level of particularly housing and affordable housing all important affordable housing coming forward within the plan period so as per the recommendation before you
At paragraphs 1.1 and 1.2 the recommendation is that this committee approves the S draft charging schedule for public consultation that would be for a period perod of six weeks in the new year and the second part of the recommendation to authorize the corporate director for planning and governance in consultation with the
Chair and vice chair of the place and economic development committee for the reasons that Johan explained earlier to make any necessary amendments to the schedule prior to public consultation it may be uh helpful to note that the S draft charging schedule has already been approved for consultation by witch Haven District
Council and will be reported to molven Hills District Council in January uh we’re progressing a joint seal charging schedule but one important point to note is that we will be required in uh the fullness of time to adopt it separately uh because each Authority is a separate charging Authority thank you chair
Duncan thank you um any questions or comment to this item please pgo thank you chair uh I think for the benefit of of non-planning counselors It’s well worth stressing that both Sil and 106 um levies can be charged on the same development but they have different purposes slightly different purposes and
One is negotiated at the time that is the one 6 in relation to an application that is made whereas s is a fixed list once we get once we decide on it and that’s upfront developers know what they’ve got to pay so you know the viability issues don’t tend to Arise at
The application stage when we’re applying s because they already know um whereas they might uh arise when we’re looking at 106 levies um but the fact is that we need the money to support our infrastructure um and there will be a funding Gap um it
Varies from time to time as to what we think it will be but um this isn’t intended to fill the entire Gap that that’s all I can really tell you at the moment thank you P I think that’s um that’s very helpful actually that bit of fill in there I
Mean I think this is a perfectly sensible update I’m happy to uh support it anyone else want to make any comment as we speak okay in that instance then we’ve got uh as Duncan has said um the recommendation 1.1 1.2 um as before you uh show of hands please those in acceptance
Yes great thanks very much Duncan thank you uh we move to agenda item8 the um shrub Hill CPO order uh who’s teing it up thank you uh this report recommends the making of a compulsory purchase order to ensure the acquisition of land and rights necessary to build a shared
Use route from shop Hill Station to peasant street through Cromwell Street 5 meter wide shed’s route for pedestrians and cyclists you will know that this has been a proposal in the development plan and the City Center master plan and as a project uh was one of the towns fund uh
Approved projects for which we now have um funding for um the report is fairly lengthy in providing a description of the project description of of of the land to be acquired which is primarily land which Falls either within the first bus garage site or the um shill retail Park Plus Parcels of
Underused and fairly um Scrappy Scrappy land um compulsory purchase is always a matter of Last Resort or not to be used um until as a last resort but government advice um recommends that uh it’s an order for local authorities to pursue a compulsory purchase order to act as a
Back stop to ensure land acquisition we have opened negotiations with all those with an interest in in land and some of those negotiations are are going well and I say the making of the compulsory purchase order is there to ensure that if needs be we can build the the uh
Share juice route in line with our Ambitions and in line with the time scale set out by by towns fund so the report sets out the the justif justification for the scheme um sets out the powers to be used for the making of the compulsory purchase order
Which in this instance would be section 226 of the Town and Country planning act um that requires the council not to exercise those Powers unless it is convinced that uh the scheme will be for the benefit of the um social economic and environmental well-being of the area
The report sets out how the proposal will bring that about in that this link is as necessary part of the Regeneration of shub Hill and the economic benefits that come around from that it provide uh social benefits and that it’ll provide a far easier route um for persons of all
Abilities from the uh the station into the town center and has environmental benefits and that um it will tidy up a very untidy um area of the city at the moment and the uh planting and Landscaping that is associated with the scheme will add to U um the the biodiversity net n gain
To that you’ll know that the um the scheme was granted planning consent in September um and as I mentioned uh it is it is a towns fund project and there’s full funding for land acquisition and the construction of of the scheme uh so subject to land acquisition the um
Deliverability of the scheme is pretty much um assured um it’s a fairly lengthy recommendation um to make compulsory purchase order um for the acquisition of land and also rights over adjoining land for the purposes of constructing so that land is more particularly described on the on the larger scale plan um displayed here
And there are associated um delegations um to be able to for the service of notices and the undertaking of negotiation and um conveying of land and nego Away um any any objections um so that’s that’s the report in a nutshell Oly happy to answer any questions Kevin M thanks any questions
Comment um from the floor ly thank you um yes it is a lengthy recommendation but it’s it’s it is about put putting legal process in in place um yes very supportive of the concept of having an imp improved um access from um shrub Hill station down into town um as
You described you know there’s in terms of active travel improving um The Pedestrian route the cycling route um and I think now at previous meetings also flagged up with the shared by scheme coming that could be a really um powerful place um to have installations on that you know and and supporting
Health and well-being and supporting people to become more active what we’re looking at is the uh compulsory purchase order and know I’m supportive this because I think it it’s partly actually about learning from some of our previous projects where in order to acquire property there been a length Fe process
And in that process you know the cost of some of that acquisition has gone up um so know if this is a way of um preventing somebody’s profiteering if I can use that word from actually the public purse um then absolutely in support of it and
Know we need this project to progress um to the time scale of the other funding that we have and and make sure it doesn’t get held up so yeah fully support thank you um Stephen hon yeah I support the scheme I think I think it is
A good idea and it won’t just benefit people coming from shook Hill station but it will also benefit people from the um eastern part of city in general because um I know when I been talking people about the um the bicycle rental scheme we’re putting in in in spring
This year people say oh yes but you haven’t got the cyer infrastructure in Worcester for this well schemes like this are part of actually getting that cycle infrastructure in place and that and from the part of the city that I live in representing Warner Parish north
Um people will be able to use the canal top path to get to the city center and actually this will actually um give a good um link from the from the canal um into the city center by St Martin’s quarter and I think will also benefit St
Martin’s quarter as well because I think apart from Asda I think the shop there have actually suffered ofid um because they’re not getting this necessary full football that they could actually get so I think I think I I think it is a really really good scheme and it will hopefully
Help to regenerate that part of the city greed further comment Karen thank you chair um I’m pleased to see with the delivering funding that we’re saying that the 10 million towns FR Gant means that there won’t be a further contribution required from The Authority if something unexpected comes
Up I presume it will come back to a committee or to to to seek further funding and it won’t just be no go over budget thank you um that’s correct it’s obviously uh the 10 million of towns fund was for other projects in addition to this particular one so if there were cost
Pressures on the shared use Link it’ be a matter of kind of reassigning our priorities across what we’re doing at shop Hill to make sure that this took place thank you Kevin any further ah sorry marer yes thank you chair I absolutely welcome this um this uh this route between the
Station and um and the city center my only quibble is that um you the end it ends on vant Street you nearly you’re not really quite in the city center there and there doesn’t seem to be very I’m probably rating this at the wrong meeting but there doesn’t
Seem to be any very obvious way of of getting right into the city center apart from going round AER um so has has any have you thought about what you do when you get to phant street I’m sure you have yeah obviously at the moment you you can continue
Directly into St Martin’s quarter through um underneath the Asda multistory car park okay uh that is that is a direct through a direct route through the multistory car park um it is um it’s not particularly attractive route at the moment and subject to there being sufficient funding within the towns fund envelope
Which at the moment there is because that was one of the proposals The Proposal would be to um improve the environment improve the ambience of that um of that walk through um you know we’ve have we have had discussions with aser about you painting painting the floor painting the the walls providing a
Force ceiling and a new lighting there um and that’s that’s a proposal that will be of worked up in due course it’s it’s I haven’t put it as part of this report because that there are no land acquisition issues there thank you very much any further questions or
Comment okay I mean I just like to say again I mean this is something I fully support um been a piece of land that’s been crying out for this level of investment for some considerable time and uh I’m delighted that we’re now moving in the right direction ction so
For the recommendations again it’s 1.1 through to 1.37 uh on a show of hands please those in acceptance that car thank you very much thank you okay and Kevin thank you uh we move to agenda item nine safe and legal Roots yours thank you chair um members this is
A Notting report informs you of the recent use of managing director’s urgency Powers enabling us to respond to a home office consultation on safe and legal Roots consultation opened on the 20th of October and closed on the 15th of December just two points of clarity um when setting a cap the home office
Are um staff to really obliged to to consult with councils um which is what they’re doing in this case um and just for clarity as well um safe and legal routs are defined as sanctioned immigration Provisions not unsanctioned so these are formal sanction routs uh proces that are in place for for people
To come into into the UK for humanitarian reasons so in simple terms the government are asking us um how many individuals we would be able to accommodate during the calendar year 2025 for three existing uh immigration schemes um they are the UK resettlement scheme the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme and the community sponsorship
Scheme obviously there are a number of other schemes as well and we we talk about these in the report just to give members a little bit of background on them and but again schemes such as homes for Ukraine they aren’t included within this consultation it’s just the three schemes that I’ve that I’ve
Mentioned um wer County Council operate a resettlement service across the county um and we felt it was useful uh or wise for them to lead on coordinating with district councils and the VCS uh in in developing uh some option for us to be able to to respond um to the
Consultation um and they also have oversight of all the work that goes on on across the county um four options were developed and they set out to paragraph 3.7 of the report um and these were presented to wer leaders board at the end of November which our joint
Leaders uh attend um in considering uh his use of urgency Powers the managing director briefed that joint leaders on the topic um and the options ahead of the the leaders board meeting uh at leaders board unanimous support was confirmed for option four um the basis of which was a single response
To be submitted on behalf of all councils in westshire um proposing a countywide figure uh and with procurement the properties continued uh to be done by um by the resettlement service County Council that works very well so why why why why why change it the number of individuals that have been
Committed to Across the county is 35 um and no more than two properties that to be procured in any one District importantly the caveat that we valed as part of the submission um is that that no social rented properties have be procured um from um from the social
Rented sector um and as as we’ve set out in the report you can see the demand for for social housing across the county and the numbers of families that are in temporary accommodation so that’s the reason we felt that procurement should only take place from the private rented
Sector and not the social rented sector and given that it’s going to be about 12 13 properties we don’t feel that will have an impact on the private rented sector across across the county um a final report on the consultation will be produced by the home office and we’ll brief members on
That when comes out um and government will need to lay a stategy instrument in the summer um in order to um put in place the cap ahead of January 2025 so because we were unable to bring a decision item on this to a committee in time um managing director’s urgency
Powers have been used this is the first committee we’ve had uh the opportunity to report back to um in line with the council’s Constitution happy to stop there chair any questions very much any questions or comment please anything at all right which case I I’ll will have uh
Offer it you happy to know yes right thank you thank you Lloyd uh we move to uh agenda item 10 electric cremators funding application um okay thank you chair um members the context to this report is that officers have submitted a Grant application um which we expect to be determined in the
New year with a with a very short window for acceptance so the report asks members to delegate the authority to accept the grant should an offer be made and of course that would be subject to consideration of any and all conditions that are attached to such a grant office
Offer um members will be aware that the cremators at asward cremator torium are approaching the end of their life and and require replacing um there’s also a high likelihood of some new statutary environmental targets um around emissions abatements being applied to existing crematoria um and our cremators will not
Take a retrofit of the equipment required for that so the creators are at points that they will need replacing within the next number of years few number of years back in March environment committee approved the commissioning of a technical feasibility study to look at the operation at astwood um and see
Whether the operations could be run with two or three creators two creators rather than three sorry which which is what is there at present those results of that study came to environment Committee in July um and members have approved the development of a detailed and fully costed design for rep refurbishment of the
Crematorium and replacement of the cremators so that work is underway project manager been appointed budget was set um and a design team is being procured and the detail on that will be brought to Future meeting of the committee um the report at 2.5 to 2.7 explains elements of the
Refurbishment um but pertinent to tonight’s report is is that the study into refurbishment is all also looking at the replacement of the creators um there’s a correction for you at 2.8 our creators were actually so in 1998 not 1988 they they’re still quite quite elderly um but not not quite as old as
That at the environment committee members expressed a preference in the debate for gasified crators to be replaced by Electric crators um but a decision in respect of that is dependent on conclusions of the study um and a full business case for the various options section three talks about the potential growth grant funding
Um operated by government Agy known as seix which is the Shand for this grant um and it offers grant funding to Bri Bridge the affordability gap between uh traditional conventional technology and more costly low carbon Solutions so the difference between uh Purchase cost of two electric crators or
Gas cators the additional for to Electric Comm mators is around 1 a half million pound um the ongoing Revenue costs of operating electric crators are approximately 10,000 pound per anom lower than gas chromator based on the cost of energy usage and maintenance and and clearly their carbon footprint is is considerably lower than
That of gas uh 3.3 uh sets out the cost of borrowing the difference um the additional money for electric crators um that would be approximately £70,000 a year over and above the costs for gas crators so there’s a net impact of electric of approximately 60,000 per anom was the
Council to go ahead with that without any grant funding this SX Grant scheme is intended to bridge that affordability gap which would mean that there would be a cost neutral implication on selecting electric over gas so accordingly officers have submitted a Grant application um that will include modern
Abatement plant fitted those crators um a heat exchanger which will label the heat to be used to heat the rest of the crematorium building and the necessary Works around that so a bid for 1.55 million has been submitted it says at 3.6 um and at 3.7 we’ve been told that
The gra Grant offer should be one be made will be no later than the 31st of March and potentially early in the New Year we have had officers have had some discussions this week actually with the uh with the funding organization um which we’re optimistically positive
About um but we won’t know for sure until we actually receive that Grant offer so therefore we’re asking tonight for a delegated decision to proceed to accept the grant offer um delegated to corporate directors in consultation with chair and vice chair should that offer be made and that of course is subject to
Conditions on the grant being acceptable and not fettering other decisions um regarding refurbishment of the crematorium so the implications are laid out in the report chair I’ll leave it there and take questions DAV many thanks questions or comment please Karen thank you chair um as chair of environment committee um
This is a project that I’m obviously very excited about because the commits uh contributes a significant proportion of our carbon for the city um but it’s also um you you did talk about the actual Improvement to the building as well which will provide a much better service for our customers as well which
Will make it a lot more attractive um and I think that’s really important I went to a a service councel Den did last week as well um for residents who’d lost loved on this year and you can see how important it is for us to provide um a
Pleasant um as possible environment for people who are distressed so the the project as a whole I think is extremely positive and we shouldn’t really underestimate the importance of it in many aspects thank you any further questions or comment please Adrian could you just clarify why we are
Being asked to do this David because um is it because the turnaround um that is expected when when if if it’s successful in the ground turnaround is is too tight for us to be able to convene a committee because we don’t know precise date of the of the
Decision that’s that’s purely it I mean it strikes me that if that is the case that’s that’s the case for a lot of Grant applications that the council enters into um in which case we we we’re almost giving know is does this set a precedent for giving cart blanch to do
Things without um a more detailed member investigation through you chair you’re quite right councelor greggson that the reason we’ve brought this is because of the type turnaround on this one um I think this one’s probably unusual that they have specified that the turnaround will be 10 working days um and I’m not
Really giv us an indication of when that um decision is likely to be made and so potentially looking at the committee cycle we could have found ourselves in a difficult position very early in the new year um I look colleagues but I don’t think this necessarily sets a precedent
For future submissions this this is an unusual one and one we thought quite hard about what decision we needed to bring to the committee but we felt the best option was the one that’s before you tonight okay thank you um anyone else Lyon I mean it does just kind of beg the
Reasonableness of 10 days as a turnaround isn’t it which um I don’t know exactly who scks are but it doesn’t take account of any Democratic cycle whe whether you’re a committee system or a cabinet system you know it appears to assume that someone can just sign off an
Agreement to one and a half million which is a yeah yeah just just noting the comments around the turn around time when we when we had the call yesterday with with sex officials um this is in no way um suggest we we will get a grant or not
But they were um they were very pleased with how we were dealing with this from a governance point of view I think the feedback was that a number of organizations would get this grant offer then Panic as what as to what to do um
And the fact that we were taking it to a committee this evening and asking for delegation to receive the Grant and lay as much information as we possibly could in front the members um I think they’ve taken that away as best practice well done team agreed again any
Further questions or comment in which case um go through the recommendation I’m assum you’ve all read it and and David has already gone through it so show of hands please those in favor yes thank you very much thank you David uh to agenda item 11 Judah house surrender and reground of
Lease thank you chair this is a happy little item um we the Judah house I’m sure you’re all familiar with it is uh is run by wer Heritage and Immunity trust and they’ve done a very very good job since they took it over in 2008 and
Looking after it and building it up an investing it and it’s now running very very well and the last thing we’d want to do is disturb that situation they came to us about 3 months or so ago and asked rather than having this arrangement whereby we have a 125 year
Lease and they pay as a pound a year if demanded in rent we simply transfer the asset to them the issue with that is if we transfer the free hole to them then we can have no say in what happens to it in the future so we want to retain that
Sa because we want to retain the asset for its current use so after some degree of discussions and negotiation we agreed settled on the idea of a 999e lease instead which gives them all the security they want going forward I mean who knows where we’ll be in 999
Years time gives us all the security that we want so they’ve accepted that as as a principle there are a few bits to do in terms of of finishing the uh the lease Etc but that’s being agreed I’ve brought it to the committee just because um normally when you do this kind of
Surrender and regant there is a lost to the to the lesie you know we we’re actually losing out financially by extending the terms of the grant because it doesn’t give us the opportunity to review the rent etc etc but the but in compensation for that they have invested
93,500 in recent times and they are planning to to invest more than that in the coming years to convert some of the external buildings and repair the heating system so it seems to me that the value that we’re getting from that is more than offsetting the loss we’re
Incurring in terms of extension that the least nominal loss so I brought it Forward really in the interest of transparency just that members are aware that this decision is been taken there is a financial implication but I think that um that is as I say offset by the
Value that we’re getting from The Proposal so it’s just for members to note that we’ve made this change and hopefully the um the trust continue to manage the museum going forward very happily thank you chair CH thanks very much anyone Elena uh yes thank you chair um yeah I’m
Really interested by this report but can I just ask for one clarification now that the charity has a longer lease does this mean that they could take a charge out against the property and will that affect the council going forward um I’m not sure what you mean by
Charging so if they wanted to borrow funds and use the assets as security for taking out Al loone They want to do any improvements something like that they see it more from the point of view of giving security to funding bodies that they’ll be able to easier to obtain
Grant because they’ve got long-term security over the asset that was the argument that they put forward I mean we could we could um we could make a condition of that in the lease uh in terms of restricting their use of the property for agreed purposes yeah I
Think I’d feel a bit more comfortable that because that would that lease could give them the security and the tenure that they could then apply funding and I I think we need to have a condition there that that can’t be done because I think the council could be at
Risk I don’t know Sean what do you think um I mean I have to say a 999 year lease is very unusual um and uh we are securing some external legal advice on the terms because um I share your reservations about the future dealings Point um and the law of property Act is
1925 um we’re contemplating a thousand years of occupation um restriction on future dealings definitely an issue permit a use a clause very tight around this as an open Heritage attraction um I think permission to deal and landlord’s consent is is an essential part of the mechanism which
Needs to remain um so I agree with you and we need to make sure that that is understood by the trustees because um uh I I think it’s quite reasonable for the leses to expect to have a relationship with the landlord where they approach the landlord for consent
On certain matters and I don’t think we want to lose that principle um I think that’s very important um so yes it’s uh it’s certainly an unusual situation Council around I I do agree uh Jaba yeah thank you chairman I’m supposedly in similar vein if if there
Was a re form of the the Housing Act and Lease hold um leasehold laws um how would that affect our dealings in in this commercial setting so if leaseholds for example the government decides to eliminate leasehold um agreements and what how would that affect this deal thank you counselor yes um it is
Very hard to contemplate how changes in law could impact on such a long-term interest that isn’t a free and that’s one of the reasons why we um will do our best in terms of the lease we put in place but as I said I would stress it’s
It is an unusual arrangement in that regard um in Practical terms I think what would happen if the changes were of sign significant magnitude would be that primary legislation would change the effect of all the private Arrangements around the country primary legislation would effectively determine how leases
Should then be interpreted in light of new legisl a so it would sort of be done unto us on on all long-term leases um I think that the way for the counil to try and retain security uh and visibility in a practical sense is to maintain the mechanism of landlord’s
Consent to any variations or changes I think that’s going to be essential just just for my clarity Sean so so that principle then basically basically sort of wraps everything else into that as a sort of package essentially the point that jabber has made and eler has made could be
Adequately dealt with under that heading well largely chair though I as I said I probably hear the hesitation in my in my uh advice um you know it’s it’s a commercial Arrangement essentially arms length and the Tenant gets the ability to have quiet enjoyment and possession and so
Forth so our rights are feted by this Arrangement um but to to keep cited on what the intentions are is around landlord’s consent to change I think um that’s that’s going to be our most effective mechanism um sorry to be slightly equivocal but I have to give my best
Advice to committee and I have to say it’s an unusual Arrangement just to say what a happy outcome from what started off as a very fraught um uh battle almost um so well done to everybody concerned so uh yeah okay Al yes um as been a private landlord I mean I’ve
Bought several properties as a lease hold I’ve had 99 year lease I’ve had 999 year lease but the whole point is having these leases that you can go to the bank and get funds on those premises so commercially Wise It’s the the property is commercially I think that should be
Right for them if they want to raise money on that property so I mean there’s a sort of something emerging it is there something we need to build in specifically here or we contend to Simply contain it within Ellena again sorry yes sorry um I’m I’m
I have to be honest you know with my background in property and property law I’m I’m really I I’ve no disrespect to Sean at all I’m really really concerned I think landlord’s consent has been tested in case law and uh withholding landlord’s consent is a an a potential gray area I
Think officer alluded to the fact that we could have no dealings taking place but I think the council is exposed potentially here and I just wonder whether it’s a difficult one I’m with my lawyer hat on I’m just wondering whether the C council is potentially exposed and whether we
Need to be having external advice to make sure that we’re completely comfortable I’m really really quite concerned if I’m honest as to what could go wrong here through your check um I agree it’s an important issue to get right and I have been speaking to external lawyers about putting the lease
Out um I’m happy through um chair and vice chairs to share the advice before we commit Signature um councelor Al through you chair councilor Al does does have a point as does um coun councilor ran I mean I think the the whole aim of us giving this lease to a an extended lease to give is to give the charity this the security that it needs to run
The operation effectively and if that means that they are then able to um raise funds as a result of it to keep that charity going and to to keep that Heritage asset going then that’s the whole intended purpose of of us giving the lease if you see what I’m saying so
You know we uh in our attempt to to give them the security we giving with one hand and taking with the other it doesn’t seem quite right so the any restrictions that we do place on the Covenant within that lease can’t be too restrictive as to effectively um
Constrain their hands from operating the model that they operate and then um thanks chair I mean I I think it it is I appreciate the concerns that are being raised and I do think that it’s just important to Recall why um we got to this point in the first
Place which was the council couldn’t afford to maintain the building yeah um you know the uh we would have um offloaded it um it could have been knocked down and built into you know any kind of Steel office block that the planning committee thought was appropriate on that street um and uh and
We wouldn’t even be talking about anymore what what we have achieved through Partnerships over the the last 30 years in this area is that um we’ve maintained a museum which is open for free to the public um tells the story of Worcester and is building and increasing and and developing that story is
Successfully applying for Grants and and has Heritage Lottery support on a number of areas um and and is is a a major you know um component of what the City offers in terms of its Heritage and its um tourism um appeal um and uh you know I think that
We we need to take that into account because if they weren’t doing it would we and the answer to that frankly is no okay Fair comment is there something you wanted to pick up there Sean before we go to to Karen I don’t think so thanks chair I
Mean I think the the um obviously the the current use is a very happy situation for everybody and I think it’s making sure that the leasehold documentation empowers funding but protects the current use you Karen Lawrence thank you J I was just wondering if it’s possible to bring it
To the group leaders meeting otherwise we don’t get to say yes I have no objection I mean we are progressing this during January so I can provide the legal advice through the group luders meeting in January Way Forward any further question Lynn yeah I mean just to kind of pull
Together some of the threads the history and so on this has been if you like a bone of contention um between between wor the municipal Charities and the council and it was kind of on that basis that actually as joint leaders you know Margie and I were approached um to kind
Of find Find A Way Forward um so know taking the advice of officers I appreciate that it is an unusual Arrangement and there was perhaps some controversy or some differences of opinion but at the end of the day it is about actually who is the best custodian of
This very old very special building and I think no I’d have to say that um history would suggest that Municipal Charities have done a far better job of looking after it than the council would have um and and it is about securing that asset in every single know in every possible way going
Forwards any anything else anyone wants to raise see any raised hands so essentially we’ll if members are happy to just note the the paper as it stands uh and then there will be uh uh an evolving uh narrative going through January that will be brought to group
Leaders okay happy to do that right thanks very much um and to conclude the evening we go to item 12 review of small ground Arrangements thank you chair uh members will recall back at our meeting on 25th of July we revised our approach the small Grant so we’ reduce the amount
That was available to 45,000 to be funded from ukbf for the coming year this is 2425 and uh reduce the amount that could be applied for to 2,000 and reduce the the the window for applying to the Autumn so we trying an approach whereby we’re bringing together all of the
Applicants into one place and then making decision between them rather than using a first come first server approach well the the conclusion of that is that we had a dozen or so applications some of which weren’t at all relevant and some of which were not sufficiently uh
Within the terms of the grant to be allowed and ultimately we’ve agreed uh six I think that are listed there under the paragraph 3.2 which are meet the terms of the grant which are which are acceptable in every respect and meet the criteria so those are proposed to go
Forward you’ll notice that the total there is 9946 so there is a significant amount of money left over so the question really arises as to what to do with what’s left 3554 uh originally in July what we suggested was that we would carry forward that um into next year but as
This is funded by ukpf as we stand we aren’t guaranteed to get any ukpf funding next year so we might not be able to carry it forward so there’s a risk if we do that so it’s better option is to is to actually defate during the coming Financial year rather than
Carrying it forward if we do that the three options which are given there on 4.3 first of all is just to run the bidding process again uh in exactly the same way and and do a further C of bids and see what happens option three gives us something which is a bit more
Targeted which is to uh add that to the 25,000 made available for miscellaneous grants that come through during the year so they could be small grants and large value ones and then option four uh which is at 4.5 agrees to that but actually reduces or removes from it
11,500 which we could use to mitigate another committee decision which was to reduce a couple of medium grants because those were to be reduced next year but we’ve not been able to get into proper discussion with those recipients of those grants so that would actually make it very difficult now in the current
Circumstances so I’m proposing to buy a little time in respect of that one to not not Implement that recommendation uh and remove that 11,500 which would mean if my maths are correct that there is 23,5 54 to add to the 25,000 already available to produce a pot for 2425 for
Miscellaneous applications when they come through and we want ensure that those who are likely to to apply for the small grants are aware of that and would be able to apply for this as well well Shane thank you any questions or comment Adrian I’m just by going through that
Process I’ve realized I should declare an interest in this item sorry CH do do we have to be clear which exactly which option we we are agreeing to if you see what I mean because it’s not listed there I think it’s kind of a blend of option three and four effectively isn’t
It that’s okay if I can CH just help out so paragraph 5.1 that’s what’s proposed there so it’s option four with the remaining funding to be allocated in line with option three y said that