CITY COUNCIL

SELLY OAK DISTRICT COMMITTEE THURSDAY 24 SEPTEMBER 2015

MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE DISTRICT COMMITTEE HELD ON THURSDAY 24 SEPTEMBER 2015 AT 1030 HOURS IN COMMITTEE ROOMS 3 &4, THE COUNCIL HOUSE, VICTORIA SQUARE, BIRMINGHAM

PRESENT: - Councillor Karen McCarthy in the Chair

Councillors Susan Barnett, Alex Buchanan, Barry Henley, Timothy Huxtable, Changese Khan and Mike Leddy.

ALSO PRESENT:-

Karen Cheney – District Head (Selly Oak) Martin Eade - Team Manager, Strategic Planning Sergeant Andy Hodgetts – Police Julie Windsor-Price – Place Manager, Housing Errol Wilson – Committee Services

************************************

NOTICE OF RECORDING

293 The Chair advised that the meeting will be webcast for live or subsequent broadcast via the Council’s internet site (www.birminghamnewsroom.com) and that members of the press / public may record and take photographs.

The whole of the meeting will be filmed except where there are confidential or exempt items. ______

APOLOGIES

294 Apologies were submitted on behalf of Councillors Phil Davis, Brigid Jones, Eva Phillips, Rob Sealy and Phil Walkling

An apology for lateness was submitted on behalf of Councillor Barry Henley. ______

MINUTES

Councillor Huxtable queried the name of the new Senior Service Manager. The Chair confirmed that it was Jonathan Anthill. It was confirmed that Cotteridge and 155

Selly Oak District Committee – 24 September 2015

Ingoldsby HLB were two separate Housing Liaison Boards covering two separate areas.

295 RESOLVED:-

That, subject to the amendments, the Minutes of the meeting held on 30 July 2015, having been previously circulated, were confirmed and signed by the Chairman.

Councillor Huxtable referred to Minute No. 287, paragraph 8 and his query concerning the Social Innovation Zone in terms of Healthy Villages. He stated that he could not recall being contacted since the 30th July 2015 Committee meeting, particularly in relation to the Bowling Green at Park. Karen Cheney, Selly Oak District Lead advised that she did not have an update on the bowling Green, but that a conversation had taken place with the head of the Wellbeing service Karen Creavin. She undertook to follow up the issue. Ms Cheney apologised for the delay in getting a response to Councillor Huxtable in relation to the other issues and advised that this was still on the agenda.

Councillor Huxtable made reference to Minute No. 289, page 7, paragraph 1 and stated that he had not had that information. On a positive note, he had received the information on the telephone mast income. The Chairman undertook to take chase up the information to ensure that Councillor Huxtable receive a response. The Chairman added that they were trying to remind people that where something had come up in a meeting and a response was promised that this be followed up before the next meeting.

Councillor Barnett made reference to Minute No. 287, paragraph 9 concerning the appointment of Councillor Champions including a Corporate Parenting Champion and stated that it was suggested that this be included on the agenda for this meeting. She enquired whether this would be addressed later on the agenda for this meeting. The Chairman advised that this would be discussed when they look at the District Work Plan. ______

STIRCHLEY DRAFT SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENT

296 Liz Jesper, Development Planning Manager introduced the item. She advised that this document replaces the former Stirchley Draft Supplementary Framework which was now out of date.

(See Document No. 1)

Ms Jesper drew the Committee’s attention to the information in the document and highlighted the following: -  The aim was to support the regeneration of Stirchley District Centre and the surrounding area.  Supporting investment in the shops including the redevelopment of the Hazelwell Lane site.  Supporting retention on the key employment uses in the area and supporting environmental improvements and improvements to the highways and pedestrian environments throughout the area.

156 Selly Oak District Committee – 24 September 2015

 The plan was issued for consultation on the 23 June 2015 and consultation was extended to the 18 September 2015. This was publicised through the Be Heard website; press notices; posters in the library and letters were sent to 250 businesses community organisations and statutory consultees.  Drop in sessions were held in the library and they had met with the Stirchley Neighbourhood Forum to talk through the Plan. They had received 60 pages of comments and responses from a number of key statutory consultees and from a mixed of local residents and traders.  The general themes emerging from the consultation were support for independent shops in the centre and a desire to see more and improved car parking, support for public spaces and improvement to the public realm.  There were some comments on the Ten Acres area that they were to give priority to secure the regeneration. This was the section between Dogpool Lane and Bewdley Road. There were also comments from the major landowners about their sites.  The next stage was to summarise the comments and consider how to amend the Plan and then submit it to Cabinet for adoption.  Any comments or suggestions from this District Committee meeting would be included with the other consultation comments that had been received.

Members then made the following comments:  Page 4 of the document needed to be updated with comments from businesses as the paragraph set out there had been overtaken by events on the Business Improvement District (BID).  The length of time it had taken to get to this point was disappointing. The draft SPD was submitted in late 2011 to early 2012, but as a result of the Pre-election period of 2012, it missed the deadline for publication. It was expected that this would come shortly after the 2012 local elections, but that it came after the 2015 local elections instead, which was 3 years of missed opportunity in terms of taking it forward.  Events had overtaken some of the things in the Plan in terms of planning applications that had been agreed like the former Lifford Curve Public House on Fordhouse Lane; 1650 Pershore Road and there was one in the Dogpool Lane area.  Junction improvement and pedestrian improvements had been overtaken by the Local Sustainable Action Plan (LSAP). Examples were Dogpool Lane, Stephens Road and Warwards Lane the junctions had been reconfigured recently. There were some minor errors in the document as Friends Meeting House was on Hazelwell Street not Hazelwell Lane.  Good ideas and aspirations were in the framework of Stirchley document in April 2002, but little if any of this had been delivered. The Stirchley Framework 2002 was going to create a whole area of increased footfall, revitalised Stirchley, but 13 years on from the publication they were saying that a new SPD was required. The Stirchley Framework did not deliver on what it had set out to deliver.

Ms Jesper advised that there was a current planning application that was submitted for the Mental Health Trust at Dogpool Lane, proposing a major expansion of their site. In terms of the aspiration about road improvements, the LSAP had been implemented, but there was still further aspiration for further junction improvements that had been flagged up by the community. Where they could do further improvements on the back of developments coming into the area they would want to support those. 157 Selly Oak District Committee – 24 September 2015

Members were reminded that the role of these documents were to set out the Councils aspirations. These documents needed to be updated in order to have weight in the eyes of the Planning Inspectorate if they wanted to take planning decisions based on them. The documents were used for bidding for resources and they had been through a time of economic decline which had affected Stirchley and other centres in Birmingham. They were dependent on private sector investment to deliver regeneration throughout the City and Stirchley.

A further comment was that there was a need to talk about employment and the opportunities that may be coming to the area. That it was welcomed news concerning the plan area which currently supports around 1,000 to 1,400 jobs in various shops and offices and could support an additional 500-600 jobs. Whether these jobs would draw people from the local area as there were some highly skilled people who lived locally, or whether they would attract people from further afield and overlooked people in the south of Birmingham.

Ms Jesper advised that in support of the District’s Jobs and Skills Plan, they tried to use Section 106 Agreements and agreement with employers to encourage a proportion of their work force to be drawn from the local area.

The Chairman stated that with regard to Ten Acres, there was a live planning application for site 2 - the St Andrews Health Care development an independent health care body who had worked well with the local neighbourhood forum on developing their plans prejudging their application. They were supportive of local initiatives – the Flood Action Groups and kit which was helpful. The Chairman advised that Sites 1, 3 and 4 plans were coming forward and this would be welcomed, but of concern was the future use of the scrap yard. Site 4 was a large site, but if the flood issues could be resolved, it could be a substantial development site.

In relation to the sustainable transport issues, Selly Park South Neighbourhood Forum were active on responding to the original plans for Pershore Road and it was their aspiration that this kind of check took place before the plans were drawn up in future. Pershore Road junction at St Stephens Road and Dogpool Lane was still not what they would have liked as traffic lights, but it was an improvement on the previous situation. The jury was still out on Warwards Lane. The Chairman commented that the document was put together well which was what they were used to from Ms Jesper and her team.

Karen Cheney commented that when the document was written all the hoardings at the swimming pool were still in place. She enquired whether they wanted something that was up to date that could go in the document when the building was completed.

The Chairman thanked Liz Jesper for attending the meeting and presenting the information. ______

SELLY OAK DISTRICT JOBS AND SKILLS PLAN

297 The following report was submitted:-

158 Selly Oak District Committee – 24 September 2015

(See Document No. 2)

Steve Farr, Employment Access Manager presented the item and drew the committee’s attention to the information contained in the document.

An extensive discussion took place and the following is a summary of the principal points made:-

i. The new University School on Park Road may be causing some issues with parking, but was having a positive impact from housing in that area. This was a school that the District needed to work with. As a result of the accidental catchment areas, Shenley Academy serves Selly Oak.

ii. In terms of the south side, a number of children from Brandwood and Billesley go out of City to Woodrush School. They did not necessarily need them to attend the meetings, but there was a need to keep them informed.

iii. In relation to the District Action Plan, it was proposed for the first Neighbourhood Challenge to be around jobs and skills. If they were going to do a thorough Neighbourhood Challenge they would need to invite the same people who had been part of a forum. A suggestion was that they started working together and then go on from there as an on-going group.

iv. It was noted that in relation to the Table on page 18 of the document Billesley Green Ward should be Billesley Ward.

v. The Constituency Employment and Skills Plan in 2008 – 2011 was part of the Working Neighbourhood Fund, but the document needed to be refreshed and kept live. Concerns were raised regarding page 12 of the Plan as it stated that the Plan was a draft as at September 2015, but some of the timescales in terms of the Action Plan were to July 2015, August 2015 and September 2015. Given that this was a critical concern it was felt that a speeding up of the phase was necessary.

vi. A question was whether the map on page 17 concerns the hotspots for unemployment across the District; and whether this information relates to the Indices of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) levels within the Constituency rather than specific unemployment. A suggestion was that there should be another map dealing specifically with employment hotspots which forms a part of the IMD levels. It was expected to see a correlation between the two, but there was no map of actual employment percentages in the Constituency in the Plan. vii. In terms of the EAT Mailing Database, of the 5 Employment and Training providers that was stated to be in Selly Oak Ward, they were all located in the Bournville Ward. There may be other training providers across the Constituency than the 5 listed which were in the same Ward. This was about linking the Plan to the SPD and that they had in existence across the Constituency. There was a lot of interest in various sites by the private sector in investment in the Stirchley SPD area, but that some of these had been rejected by planning which would have created jobs and employment and funding for junction improvement. There was a need for a closer link

159 Selly Oak District Committee – 24 September 2015

between the Employment and Skills Plan and SPD and other Planning and Regeneration initiatives. viii. There was little consultation with what future employers wanted in the southern quadrant of the City; there was nothing to talk about one of the worst Wards – Brandwood in terms of employment opportunities. There was a significant amount of residents living in one of the worst 5% Super Output areas. Most of the training providers were in Bournville Ward which was not poor, whereas Brandwood and Billesley which had some of the worst employment opportunities were being left behind. There was a need to start to look at what was needed, where it was needed and act on that rather than doing a desk top exercise.

ix. It was the Committee’s job to bring people together for new partnerships that would enable them to work together better to get the feedback from local people as to what the barriers to employment were and take this forward.

x. Brandwood and Billesley Wards had always featured as areas of deprivation, high unemployment, and low skills from 2007 onwards from when they had the Neighbourhood Renewal Funds (NRF), but that the NRF money in Brandwood and all the other Wards in Selly Oak Constituency was not used for the purpose for which it had been given.

xi. The NRF lasted until 2008 and was superseded by the Working Neighbourhood Fund (WNF). An element of the WNF was devolved down to Districts to spend on local initiatives and projects. The Elected Members had input as to how WNF was spent within the District on localised District projects specifically focused on employment and skills. An example was the use of apprentices in terms of the resurfacing of the canal towpaths along the Worcestershire and Birmingham Canal. xii. It was hoped that they would have some idea how the Local Innovation Fund (LIF) was shaping up at the next District Committee and this would be around these kinds of priorities and would be about projects that would make a difference within the area.

Mr Farr thanked the Members for their comments and stated that in terms of the timescale and the action planning, it had been considered as to where the merits to setting up a District Jobs and Skills Working Group or Project Board, but the consideration was whether or not to do so. As a result of the Neighbourhood Challenge, if the District was minded to prioritise this in its Neighbourhood Challenge process, either way forward, it would be productive. Mr Farr further stated that they would be keen to see this as a starting point and that pulling the statistical information together, had been a desk based exercise, but they were keen to involve all the providers across the District who would join with the Committee and take ownership of the Plan.

The resources to deliver solutions for employment did not flow through the City Council alone, but flows through other organisations and therefore, they had to work in partnership with a range of providers. They were also interested in what their schools were doing in terms of readying young people for the world of work. The whole range of provisions that affects this was available to the community,

160 Selly Oak District Committee – 24 September 2015

but to get people to realise that they could work together instead of separately to deliver the solution in areas of need like Brandwood and Billesley was something they wanted to draw attention to through this work. The Gap Analysis was about the kind of things that Councillor Leddy was referring to. The point of working together and getting the organisation to realise this was what was driving the Plan in this way.

The Chairman thanked Steve Farr for attending the meeting and presenting the information. ______

FUTURE DISTRICT ACTION PLAN AND WORK PROGRAMME

298 The Chairman introduced the item and advised that they had been talking about their first Neighbourhood Challenge around jobs and skills. She stated that consideration needed to be given to whether the major developments in the City were creating job opportunities in Brandwood and Billesley Wards; the Life Sciences and retail development in Selly Oak and whether the transport links were sufficient.

In terms of the opportunities advertised, the question was whether people applied and this was the same with the High Speed 2 (HS2) and whether they were too far round for this to have a positive impact. Regarding the City Centre redevelopment, the question was whether people could afford to travel into the City Centre and whether the pay rates was such that it was worth getting a bus pass to get in from Maypole or Yardley Wood to the City Centre.

Councillor Huxtable made reference to HS2 and stated that the reopening of the Camp Hill rail line in south Birmingham would help the District with the creation of new railway stations at Hazelwell, and Moseley, all of which could be accessed by residents of part of Billesley, Brandwood and Bournville Wards in terms of taking rail commuters to Moor Street Station.

Moor Street Station would share a concourse with the HS2 Station at Curzon Street which would improve connectivity. It did not matter whether the jobs were created in the District or elsewhere in Birmingham as long as it gets those young people who were Not in Education Employment or Training (NEET), into training and jobs and they were becoming economically active. It was known that Eastside as the Enterprise Zone would create thousands of new jobs by 2026.

A direct trade link using the Camp Hill line into Moor Street, the centre for Eastside would provide advantage to the residents of Brandwood, Billesley and Bournville Wards, in that connectivity link between where they live and where they work would increase where the jobs would be created.

The Chairman commented that for the Neighbourhood Challenge they may have two sessions in October and early November that would be open, but would not be web streamed so that they could have more flexibility in who will speak and how they run the sessions – possibly half day or longer. The Chairman undertook to circulation information to find some dates that suit and a list of who would be invited to give evidence.

161 Selly Oak District Committee – 24 September 2015

At this juncture, the Chairman invited Karen Cheney to present the paper setting out the revised version of the future District arrangements that followed on from the discussion at the District Committee meeting on the 30 July 2015.

(See Document No. 3)

Karen Cheney, Selly Oak District Head drew the attention of the Committee to the information in the revised document.

In terms of the District Action Plan, there were some gaps where they needed a Member Champion for the Corporate Parenting Champion role with a wider brief of overall education for children and families. The other was in terms of setting up the Employment Skills and Regeneration Forum. The District Convention would be held in November but a date needed to be agreed. The Convention was co- produced with active community groups.

The Community Planning – jobs and skills were presented over the last two District Committee meetings; action plan and health and wellbeing. The District had a suite of planning documents that goes together alongside the District Committee planning. The focus at the District Convention would be how this was pulled together to produce Selly Oak District’s first Community Plan. A suggestion was that closely aligned to jobs and skills would be a presentation from Education in terms of all the connectivity. This could be a part of the District Work Programme presented at the next District Committee meeting.

The Chairman made the following announcements that: - . Councillor Barnett had volunteered to be the Corporate Parenting Champion for Selly Oak District.

. The District Strategic Housing Panel (DSHP) Chairman had resigned due to pressure of work. They were looking for a replacement and that it was hoped that it would be someone from one of the Housing Associations to chair the DSHP.

. The District Health and Wellbeing Partnership was a new one that they needed to look at and how this would be taken forward working with the CCGs and also with the other providers closer to the neighbourhoods.

. That Councillor Susan Barnett had offered to lead on this and they would be looking for a Chairman from those partners.

. A volunteer would be sought for Stand Up for Birmingham (SU4B) and the Arts Forum was their Culture Champion, but the Arts Forum do a brilliant job of running themselves and supporting each other and that the Chair had a decision making remit. They consistently put on good events.

Following discussions, it was suggested that the District Convention be held on Saturday 28 November 2015, at the Stirchley Baths as it had Wi-Fi. Confirmation of the date of the event would be circulated to Members etc.

. Birmingham South Local Delivery Group was around safety issues and traditionally they had a District Tasking meeting and they also had a Ward Police Tasking meeting.

162 Selly Oak District Committee – 24 September 2015

. There were 4 different models for the four Wards – Billesley combines this with the Ward Committee. There was a need to decide going forward whether this would be called a Ward Committee or a Ward Forum. This was a separate piece of work they were working through.

At this juncture, the Chairman invited Inspector Hodgetts to give a view on the Police thinking in terms of Tasking.

Inspector Hodgetts advised that he had had recent conversations with the Chief Inspector and had dealt with most of the Councillors across this forum on other matters. It was useful to engage other ways of working that had impacted on each of the communities. Each community was different in its dynamics so he would not like to see a specific format from the Police being the same cross-over for all 4 Wards. The Sergeant should have a scope of flexibility to be able to take ownership for the right service for the right communities, but there was no fixed plan for this at this time regarding the structure for Selly Oak. Inspector Hodgetts undertook to raise the issue at the Sergeants meeting on the 5 October 2015.

The Chairman commented that there was a need to work together with the Police on this as part of the District Work Plan concerning the meetings. The Chairman suggested that the Schools Partnership and the Children and Families Partnership could be invited to November’s District Committee meeting with either two separate reports or a joint one. They will speak with the Youth Service to ascertain how the Youth Summit fits in with the District Convention. ______

HOUSING TRANSFORMATION BOARD PERFORMANCE REPORT QUARTER 1 2015/16

299 The following performance report and performance narrative from the Service Director, Housing Transformation was submitted:-

(See Document No. 4)

Julie Windsor-Price, Place Manager presented the item and drew the Committee’s attention to the information in the report and the narrative.

Councillor Barnett referred to the Estates and Tenancy Management section of the report regarding the caretaking arrangement and the cleaning of the Blocks. She stated that what seems to be a problem in her Ward was that in the Low Rise Blocks the ground floor flats had garden facilities. She added that where the tenants were sometimes allowing their garden to become overgrown and this comes out onto the path this creates a problem for tenants on the higher floors. Councillor Barnett advised that earlier this week she had received a complaint that the bin men could not return the bins to their proper place as the path was so overgrown. She questioned whether there was a regular check/enforcement on the tidiness of the gardens and whether this was part of what estate management did.

Ms Windsor-Price advised that this was part of their estate management and that they had carried out assessments which may not cover all the areas, but they try to target certain areas when the assessments were undertaken. She stated that

163 Selly Oak District Committee – 24 September 2015

there was currently a drive on where they target certain areas to pick up and identify issues like the one mentioned by Councillor Barnett. She added that if the Estate Management Team was not made aware of these issues and they were not covered by a cleaning crew, they rely on the reports of tenants etc. on order to take action. There were dedicated inspections across the Wards by the Estate Services staffs.

Councillor Huxtable made reference to the Place action Plan and enquired when Members were likely to see the finalised documents for the Place Action Plan. Ms Windsor-Price advised that the target date for completion of the Place Action Plan was November 2015, but that she would confirm this later. ______

BIRMINGHAM COUNCIL HOUSING INVESTMENT PROGRAMME ENVIRONMENTAL WORKS BUDGET 2015/16

300 A report of the Senior Service Manager, Housing Transformation was submitted:-

(See Document No. 5)

Julie Windsor-Price, Place Manager introduced the item and drew the Committee’s attention to the information in the report.

The Chairman commented that the plans for this year (Appendix 3) were not included in the agenda pack. She advised the Committee of a project for Kenton Walk – security door for Selly Oak; a small project for Broad Meadow Lane and they were still awaiting the Billesley projects to come forward.

Ms Windsor –Price apologised for the omission of Appendix 3 to the report and advised that there was a small project for Maypole Grove – Blocks 26; 36; 38 – 44; 46 – 56; and 58 – 64 to carry out internal decoration to communal areas at the four Blocks to include preparation of wood and masonry surfaces, redecorating, using matching colours and fire retardant paint and anti-graffiti coats on walls. The quote for this was £6,100. It was noted that the Billesley Councillors needed time to think about this project.

The Chairman commented that this may need to be picked up under Chair’s Action.

Clarification was sought on what the Housing Liaison Boards (HLB) budget could be spent on as there appeared to be some inconsistency. Allied to this, was the key to link the HLB budget with the Place Action Plan – discussions with the Place Based Manager was about looking at the provision of flower planters with the HLB along Bell Lane and other places in the area, which was provided with little plaques by the HLB. Discussions were also had concerning how these could be worked into the Place Action Plan. It was suggested that a capital improvement could be done which would need a source of funding. The HLB budgets could be a source of funding.

The Chairman commented that she was in agreement with Councillor Huxtables’ comments concerning the HLB budget. She added that it was hoped that it was not the case that Yardley Wood under 7s football team membership was restricted to people from families where HLB budgets were relevant. She requested that the

164 Selly Oak District Committee – 24 September 2015

issue be clarified so that there were common standards across the City on what the HLB budgets could be spent on.

Ms Windsor-Price stated that she was in agreement concerning the comments regarding the issue of the HLB budget. She undertook to investigate all spend across the Wards in the District to ensure consistence in the future. She advised that the HLB aerial budget and the capital budget were included in the Place Action Plan. ______

PLACE DIRECTORATE PERFORMANCE REPORT QUARTER 1

301 The following report of the Service Director, Place Directorate was received for information and noted:-

(See document no. 6)

The Chairman stated that the statistics were difficult to follow and that she was going to asked if Members would find it easier to use their Tablets/laptops for meetings, but looking round the room everyone was working off paper copies. She added that they really needed statistics where there were bar charts that did not rely on colour to differentiate. They needed an easier way to differentiate from black and white.

Ms Cheney stated that the comments that had been received from Members consistently was that they did not find these particularly useful to follow and that they had to feed these back. The reason for this was to prompt a debate whether as Members they wished to have something now that the District list have shown what were in the District management of services and the Service Level Agreements (SLAs).

It was noted that the information was slightly out of date as the function which the District Committees had, had changed following the last Constitution. There was now an overarching approach across the board which was either thematic or linked to the priorities in their partnerships rather than just the ones that were here to prompt that debate, rather than the specific statistics that were in the document.

Councillor Huxtable made reference to pages 21 – 24 of the document in relation to Highways which stated that there was no available data due to technical issues. He added that this gives a lack of confidence in their ability to deal with that. He further stated that if they had no available data due to technical issues, the question was what other technical issues had arisen that had stopped the work from being done. He voiced concern regarding the issue given how important highways were for people, goods, service the safety of pedestrians and cyclists and anyone who uses the highway.

Councillor Huxtable voiced concerns with regard to the environmental issues on pages 25 - 30 of the document. He further made reference to the information on page 15 – 16 which had a RAG rating of red. He remarked that all but two of the RAG rating was red and there was no target for the number of proactive dog fouling exercises carried out as this was a reactive service. He added that all the red RAG rating was of concern and that the host of environmental issues – the

165 Selly Oak District Committee – 24 September 2015

City had received £29.8m for the weekly waste collection service from the Government and that the City Council invested £32.8m on top of this to deal with environmental issues. This was one area where there was additional resource since 2011 in terms of investing into these environmental issues, yet the majority of the RAG rating on most of them was red.

The Chairman commented that she was baffled on how a proactive exercise could be a reactive service. She stated that it was worth noting that the information from pages 25 – 30 of the document, were citywide measures or residents survey data. There was no District based figures for Selly Oak. She suggested that a representative from Fleet and Waste Management be invited to attend the next District Committee meeting scheduled for November 2015. The Chairman undertook to check with Councillor Lisa Trickett, Cabinet Member for Green, Smart and Sustainable City to ascertain whether she would like to attend with officers or for officers to attend as the issue needed to be addressed.

Councillor Huxtable advised that there was a breakdown in the written questions to Cabinet Members at the City Council meeting held on the 15 September 2015 pertaining to the percentages of tonnage collecting of recycling on a Ward by Ward basis. Looking at the Wards within Selly Oak District, the figures did not make pleasant reading. A copy of this information was requested for the next District Committee meeting in November 2015.

Councillor Barnett referred to page 9 of the document in relation to the Youth Service and stated that she was unclear as to what the information was saying as the RAG rating was Year-end target only. She added that the target level appeared to be set at zero, but in quarter 2 there were over 3,000 young people ages 11 – 25 engaged in youth work. It was not clear what this information was stating with regards to outcome on the following page. She enquired whether it would be possible to get an explanation of what the graphs were saying.

The Chairman undertook to take this up on the specifics, but it was also an opportunity to explore this if they get the relevant persons along. ______

CONSULTATION ON THE BIRMINGHAM DEVELOPMENT PLAN EXAMINATION INSPECTOR PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS

The following report of the Director of Planning and Regeneration that was submitted to the Cabinet Committee on 25 July 2015 and the relevant Cabinet Committee decision was submitted:-

(See document No. 7)

Martin Eade, Team Manager, Planning Strategy introduced the item and advised that the report was to update the Committee concerning the on-going processes that were involved in preparing the Birmingham Development Plan (BDP). He advised that this was a Plan that would set an overall framework for development and growth in Birmingham for the next 15 – 20 years. He stated that it was a statutory requirement for the City Council to produce a Plan and that there was a lengthy complicated process that they had to go through in producing this which includes an independent examination by the Planning Inspector at the end. Once adopted the Plan would be the basis for all the planning decisions the City Council

166 Selly Oak District Committee – 24 September 2015 makes. Preparing the Plan was a long process and various versions had been to the District Committees over the last few years. He added that they were getting near the end of the process and that the Plan was submitted for examination In July 2014.

An Examination hearing took place in October/November in 2014 and they had now received from the Inspector the main modifications that he was proposing to the Plan. These were changes the Inspector thinks were necessary to the Plan in order for it to be adopted by the Council. Mr Eade advised that they were currently consulting on those modifications.

Mr Eade advised that in terms of the modifications, the Inspector had proposed no significant changes to the key pillows which were parts of the Plan. The overall level of growth they were proposing in Birmingham had not been changed through the examination process. The strategy that they had for delivering that growth in a series of growth areas across the City including had not changed. The Inspector made no fundamental changes to the proposals which are included for development in the Green Belt to the North East of the City at Langley and Pedimore.

In relation to the Green Belt it was important to state that the Inspector had not made any further proposal for Green Belt development. It was noted that the City was not able to accommodate all of its housing growth within Birmingham boundary. The Inspector had supported that position and the approach the City was taking with working with its neighbouring authorities to secure land for Birmingham Housing in the adjoining areas. This was an endorsement of the approach the Council was taking. That said, there were a number of modifications, the vast majority were of a detailed changes which sought to add clarity to the text of the document to bring it in line with Government Policy, in some cases to update it to reflect changes in Government Policy. The more significant of these were summarised in paragraph 5.5 of the Cabinet report.

In terms of proposals that impacts significantly on Selly Oak District, there were very few changes. The main growth potential was the Selly Oak area itself and the Inspector made a couple of minor changes to that policy. The policy was substantially unchanged. In relation to Councillor Huxtable’s comment earlier concerning the Camp Hill railway line, the planners’ submitted support for the delivery of the Camp Hill Cord, reopening of the Camp Hill rail line and for the provision of the stations for the three places mentioned by Councillor Huxtable. This was in the Plan and there had been no change to this. The issue was obtaining the resources for this to deliver and make it happen.

The consultation process runs until the 12 October 2015 and all comments received would be submitted to the Inspector who will take account of these comments before he produces his final report and recommendations to the City Council at the end of this year. It would then be for the Council to take the Plan forward and adopt it.

The Chairman commented that a lot of what they were interested in was the SPD such as the one for Selly Oak. They had looked at the Stirchley SPD earlier. There was the issue of tackling student accommodation in more depth in Selly Oak Ward. She questioned how the relationship worked given that they had the Greater Selly Oak Plan that was adopted during the consultation process and on

167 Selly Oak District Committee – 24 September 2015 the BDP there was another one coming forward. The Chairman further enquired whether this was a separate strand of work which as long as it did not contradict, the process kept going.

Mr Eade stated that in terms of the hierarchy of how the system worked the citywide Plan would be put in place and then they would do the detailed plans that followed on from that. It could take a long time for the BDP to be put in place, as there may often be issues where there was a sensible reason for bringing forward something more quickly. He advised that the Selly Oak proposals in terms of their principles were well established and there was no difficulty in bringing these proposals forward in advance of this plan. The fact that the Inspector had made no changes, it confirms that this was a sensible way forward.

In terms of the student accommodation it maybe that there were more detail to follow on from this plan regarding the policy in the BDP in relation to student accommodation. It would be sensible for this policy to be confirmed before they went too far in taking forward an additional policy document to flesh out that policy. It was a question of the SPD being consistent to policy. Their function was to expand on this and provide more detail at a local level.

Councillor Huxtable made reference to paragraph 5.5 of the Cabinet report, bullet point 7 and stated that given that the Bournville Ward had suffered from traveller incursion in recent months, and the subsequent cost to the City Council, in terms of enforcement activity, clean-up which speaking to John Burke, Depot Manager, Lifford Lane who advised that the cost was ‘horrendous, he welcomed the additional information for Gypsies and travellers for the two locations mentioned in the report. He enquired how they could ensure that gypsies and travellers used these sites, rather than illegal incursion onto City Council land or the subsequent cost that fell upon the City Council.

Councillor Huxtable raised the issue of area of restraints particularly in Middleton Hall Road/Bunbury Road in terms of certain classifications. There was a change of policy along with other area restraints to similar types of roads. He sought clarification on the issue and enquired how this fits within the BDP. The area of restraint was that domestic residential properties were being turned into nurseries, Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMO), nursing homes etc. as it reached a critical mass along those roads. He stated that there would be a Neighbourhood Plan Referendum in October in the Balsall Heath area. Councillor Huxtable questioned whether any consideration had been given to neighbourhood plans within the Selly Oak District as he could thing of a couple of areas where the community would like to bring forward a neighbourhood plan based on adopted or emerging SPD.

(Councillor Dr Barry Henley attended the meeting at 12:20pm).

Mr Eade stated that in terms of the gypsies and travellers he did not think that simply proposing a site or delivering a site could prevent gypsies and travellers choosing to take up residence somewhere else illegally. The existence of the two sites would make it easier for the City Council to deal with that situation when it arises quickly.

In terms of the areas of restraint, this was not dealt with directly by the BDP. There was currently a consultation on the development management document

168 Selly Oak District Committee – 24 September 2015

that would deal with area of restraint. The area of restraint policies were currently contained in the Unitary Development Plan. These policies would not be superseded by the BDP. These policies would continue until they were replaced by another document.

Neighbourhood Plans were essentially for neighbourhoods to decide if they wanted to do a neighbourhood plan. If there were communities who wished to proceed with that, their approach would be to contact the Planning Strategy Team to agree what they wanted to do and to approach the City Council. They had a right to prepare a neighbourhood plan if this was what they wanted to do. The only constraint they would have was that it had to be consistent with the BDP document in terms of any growth areas there might be within those areas.

The Chairman commented that this was a huge piece of work as evidenced to the fact that only Balsall Heart had got to that stage. Moseley still had not reached that stage despite having a lot of people who would like to see a neighbourhood plan in the legal sense.

Councillor Huxtable commented that it had a cost implication to the City Council only for the actual referendum itself and the technical expertise support that the City Council Planning and Regeneration would have to give. Even if this was proposed by a neighbourhood, the City Council would still have to agree to it and to cover the cost of taking it forward.

Mr Eade advised that his understanding of the situation was that the City Council did not have discretion as far as that was concerned. If a community decides that it wishes to bring forward a neighbourhood plan, the boundary would had to be agreed to ensure it was a sensible boundary, but beyond this, if they decided they were going to do this and goes through the process and gets to the referendum stage, the bill for the referendum had to be met by the City Council. The Chairman thanked Martin Eade for attending the meeting and presenting the information.

It was

302 RESOLVED:-

That the report be noted. ______

UPDATE ON GOVERNANCE ARRANGEMENT FOR DISTRICT AND WARD COMMITTEES/FORUMS

303 Karen Cheney, District Head gave the following update on the interim management support and the governance arrangement:-

a. The District arrangements had now been completed. b. In terms of the interim management support of officers within the District, they were in an interim stage from August 2015 – November 2015 where District Heads were covering support for two districts within that period of time. She was the District Head for Selly Oak, but had an overseeing role for in the interim period up to November 2015.

169 Selly Oak District Committee – 24 September 2015

c. From November, the future operating model would then be put in place in terms of the District support and the services the District no longer managed, but were localised. d. They had gone to the first meeting with the Trades Union and the November date would happen. In terms of the District arrangements, they had discussed the District Planning, Neighbourhood Challenge partnership Convention. e. With regard to the Wards the Member Development Programme was on- going as there was one on the 21September 2015 and on the 24 September 2015. f. Within the District there was an informal Members meeting concerning Wards and she had met along with the District Chair those Chairs that were able to attend that meeting. Ward meetings were now being arranged. g. In relation to officer support, there would be in the new model 4 Governance Managers that would help to support Ward meetings. h. There were currently 2 Governance Managers in the interim arrangement. i. The Governance Manager support for Selly Oak District was Kay Thomas. Ms Thomas would assist with agenda setting and publicity. j. The draft Action Tracker was now being rolled out in its draft form to get Members comments to ascertain whether this was fit for purpose. ______

NEWS FROM SELLY OAK WARDS: BILLESLEY, BOURNVILLE, BRANDWOOD AND SELLY OAK

304 Police Reorganisation

Inspector Hodgetts advised that Selly Oak had undergone significant restructure and that they were now in week 8 and the process was subjected to a 3 in 6 months review. Sergeant McReilly would be completing the review and would be presenting to his supervisors at the end of October/beginning November. He added that he was not waiting 3 months to find out what improvements they have had and what developments they needed to make. He advised that he had already undertaken an internal review and whilst crime and ASB had maintained the standard, they had had some improvements in terms of their internal working with their demand. The premises that they had were due to teams that covered their work which were more visible and active in the community, whilst they had a secondary operations team that takes responsibility for a lot of their work load on a Ward basis.

He reported that some of the work they had done over the last two weeks had significantly reduced that demand with the operations team, although he could not confirm at this time what the intention would be in the near future to supply the team with more officers so that here were visibility on the street where they could make a greater impact with the community.

Some of the feedback he needed and the results did not come from the Police resources, but from Councillors and the community itself to gage the results. Councillor Phillips had undertaken a survey on Brandwood Ward and he was interested in results and that most of the Councillors were happy with a similar format to keep the feedback coming. He added that he would like to get this information before the end of October in order that they could be processed to make this part of the feedback.

170 Selly Oak District Committee – 24 September 2015

Karen Cheney, District Head gave the following update:-

 The Summer Reading Challenge was supported by volunteers – put forward and received Standing Up for Birmingham Certificates  Brandwood Library – work was due to commence next month. The two University of Birmingham students who were doing internship with Billesley Ward had now completed the programme and would be returning to university on Monday. She expressed thanks for the work that they had undertaken.  The District was represented in the Heritage week presentation to the City Heritage Panel.  The opening of Bournville Hub took place last weekend  Film Night would be starting in Selly Oak tonight  Stirchley Bath improvement now completed and a newsletter would be circulated shortly.

Councillor Huxtable welcomed the opening of Bournville Hub in Sycamore Road. He requested that Ms Cheney assisted with the work for a community post office. It was noted that the Stirchley Baths, would be open prior to the next District Committee. Councillor Huxtable enquired what role was there for the Friends of Stirchley Bath. In terms of the Neighbourhood Offices the proposals was to reduce/close two in the District. The question was what impact this would have and whether there was alternative provision.

Ms Cheney advised that a newsletter would be circulated and that the Members would be briefed. There were some snagging issues, but they were looking to at the beginning of December for a formal opening. All the key community stakeholders would be involved in the opening. There would be a celebratory event in the evening and the date of this was to be confirmed.

In terms of the NAIS an update would be provided at the next District Committee meeting. An update on the timescale and what the alternative provision was. Councillor Huxtable stated that the alternative provision had been reduced and that clarity was needed concerning this issue. He added that a joined-up approach was needed. ______

OTHER URGENT BUSINESS (REPORTS BY OFFICERS)

305 None raised. ______

AUTHORITY TO CHAIRPERSON AND OFFICERS

306 RESOLVED:-

In an urgent situation between meetings, the Chair jointly with the relevant Chief Officer has authority to act on behalf of the Committee.

171 Selly Oak District Committee – 24 September 2015

The meeting ended at 1245 hours.

------CHAIRPERSON

172