Agenda and minutes

[To receive any apologies for absence]. 

Apologies for absence were received from Cllr Phil Bateman, Cllr Val Evans and Cllr Jacqueline Sweetman.

Cllr Thompson advised that Cllr Udey Singh would be late to the meeting as he had been in London.  Cllr Simon Bennett would also arrive later in the meeting due to his attendance at a School Governors meeting. 

Cllr Paul Birch, JP, BEM was officially substituting for Cllr Jacqueline Sweetman. 

[To receive any declarations of interest]. 

There were no declarations of interest.

[To consider the Annual Scrutiny Report, May 2021 – May 2022 before it goes to Full Council].

The Scrutiny Team Leader presented the Annual Scrutiny Report, May 2021 – May 2022.  The Annual Scrutiny report took the format of a newsletter style.  40 official Scrutiny public meetings had been held during the year.  For a small team, this was a significant number of meetings to organise.  When you removed School Holidays, where the Council tended not to hold public meetings, it averaged out at about one public scrutiny meeting per week.  When the current Municipal year was finished, even more meetings would have been held than the previous year. 

The Scrutiny Team Leader stated that it was easy to ascertain from the report that excellent scrutiny relied on a One Council approach where all Members and Officers contributed to the function.  He thanked all Members and Officers for their engagement with the Scrutiny Team.  The report showed a wide range of areas were covered during the Municipal year of May 2021 – May 2022.  The year had also saw a Select Committee on the Wolverhampton Pound, which had made over 20 recommendations.  The recommendations had been monitored by Scrutiny Board and the Resources and Equality Scrutiny Panel.  

The Scrutiny Team Leader commented that the Scrutiny Annual report May 2022 – May 2023 would be written during the Summer with an aim for publication in September.  He personally thanked all Members of the Scrutiny Team, old and new for their contribution to the Scrutiny function during the municipal year. 

The Chair commended the Chairs of the Scrutiny Panel and the Members of the Panel and Scrutiny Board for their work throughout the Municipal year.  He thanked the Officers who had serviced an inordinate large amount of meetings, which included all the administration work before and after meetings, including following up on actions.  He asked the Chief Executive to pass on his thanks on behalf of the Scrutiny Board to everyone involved. 

The Vice-Chair remarked that the Annual Scrutiny report was one of the most important reports, that the Council produced each year.  He felt it was the best Annual Scrutiny report he had seen in terms of its content.  Scrutiny was a vital function of any Local Authority in the decision making process.  It was right to ask questions and learn from where mistakes had been made.   He welcomed the improvements that had been made to the Scrutiny process.  He looked forward to the Annual Scrutiny Report for the Municipal year May 2022 – May 2023.   He paid tribute to everyone involved in the Scrutiny function.

Resolved: That the Annual Scrutiny Report May 2021 – May 2022 be noted. 

[To consider a report on the Wolverhampton Investment Prospectus – First Phase Delivery Plan]. 

[Report is marked: To Follow]. 

The Chief Executive gave a presentation on the Wolverhampton Investment Prospectus – First Phase Delivery Plan, a copy of which is attached to the signed minutes.   

The Cabinet Member for Inclusive City Economy gave a statement of his views on the prospectus.

A Board Member asked if the building of St George’s Church would be retained and not demolished.  The Chief Executive responded that it was a grade two listed Church and would be retained within any scheme.  The building added character to the City.

A Board Member referred to the importance of family homes in the City, it was more than flats which were needed in the City.  She wanted more detail on the City Centre West proposals.   She referred to the importance of a new hotel in the City.  If Broad Street Car Park was replaced, she suspected an underground car park might be constructed.  She raised a concern that this could impact on elderly people attending the Theatre.  Some people did not like to use underground car parks.   

The Chief Executive agreed that a balanced housing offer was required in the City.  The Canalside South Scheme by Legal and General was bringing forward 400 units with a mixture of tenures and uses.  The Royal Hospital site would also be a mixture of accommodation.   Distinct quality that was reflective of the housing market in the City was what the Council was aiming to achieve.  The detail would be developed with the developers and they were seeking Cabinet approval to proceed with the approach.  He agreed that more hotel accommodation was required in the City and he believed there was a strong demand.  They were conscious of a need to deliver a balanced car parking model in the City and if Broad Street Car Park was used for other means, it would require parking elsewhere to compensate for the loss.

A Board Member referred to the visit she had attended to the National Brownfield Institute.  She commended the land which had been flattened and was ready to build on.  She did express concern in relation to the type of panelling that she had been shown would be placed on the housing for the Canal Side South modular scheme.  She suggested a pre-planning meeting to discuss the aesthetics of the housing.  The Regeneration Manager responded that there was a pre planning stage coming up.  The Council’s planners would be challenging L&G (Legal and General) on the uniqueness of the product and ensuring that there was a high quality outcome as part of the process. 

The Cabinet Member referred to the excellent relationship the Council had with the architects L&G.  L&G would place on any facade that the Council asked within the limit of the modular design.  On the matter of hotels he referred to the fact that many hotels were a franchise scheme.  It was possible in the future that the Council could ask a developer to build a hotel and then franchise it out.  The Council  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

[To consider the support to businesses impacted by the Public Realm work].

[Report is marked: To Follow]. 

Several Members raised objections to the report being received on the evening of the meeting, just after 5pm.  The Director of Communications and Visitor Experience apologised for the late report.  Officers wanted to provide as much information as possible and had wanted to wait for the meeting that had taken place with Traders the evening before.  They had also had to seek the permission from RSM to share some of the information that had been provided to them in their full report.   

The Cabinet Member for Inclusive Economy also offered his apologies for the late report, which he believed had been necessary because it had been important to meet the Traders on the evening before to share the information with them first.  It had been an intense piece of work which required careful legal considerations. 

The Vice-Chair raised concerns about to follow reports and asked it to be noted that he did not want this to be an ongoing issue. 

There was an exchange of views about the quality of engagement with traders that had taken place. 

A Board Member commented that for future projects of a similar nature it was important to have better planning on how the traders were communicated with and the support they were offered.  

The Head of Enterprise gave a presentation on Victoria Street Business Support.  She presented a summary timeline which started in May 2022 and ended on 13 March 2023.  RSM had been appointed to review the previous scheme and make recommendations for improvement for Council consideration and decision.  Their review had taken place between 3 January and 17 February 2023, with their final report being received on Friday, 3 March 2023.  It had been acknowledged that in the Council’s view, there was no legal requirement on the Council to provide support. 

The Head of Enterprise stated that the RSM report had made the following points: -

·       Whilst a reduction in turnover was often a good indicator of a loss of trade, any support should be based on the loss of profits, a business had suffered as a result of a loss of trade caused by the works.

·       The financial review was unlikely to have captured the true loss position, as it focussed solely on the fall in turnover of a business.

·       Businesses needed to be individually assessed, to understand the nature of the business and how the work may have affected their operations of loss of profit.

·       The periods used in the financial review were not adequate to assess the loss of trade and profits, noting that there was no one size fits all approach to a loss of profits methodology.

·       It was unclear how the financial information provided by the traders through the process had not been verified.

The Council were considering two options.  The first one involved the consideration of five criteria:-

1.     Eligibility Criteria.

2.     Evidence to be provided.

3.     Validating information.

4.     Examining evidence and calculating the loss. 

5.     Calculating disruption payments.

The Head of Enterprise described in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

[To consider the Scrutiny Work Programme]. 

The Vice-Chair stated that it had been a good year for Scrutiny Board.  He thanked colleagues for the support given for the meetings throughout the year. 

[To consider a presentation on Home Office Asylum Policy]. 

The Chair stated that the Home Office Asylum Policy item had been requested by the Vice-Chair of Scrutiny Board.  The presentation was to provide information and clarity on the Home Office Asylum process for any individual arriving in the UK claiming refugee status.  It also provided details of current Government policy and the steps taken by Wolverhampton Council to influence it.  A copy of the presentation, is attached to the signed minutes. 

Government policy was based on the Immigration Asylum Act 1999 and Asylum Support Regulations 2000.  The UK had a statutory obligation to provide destitute asylum seekers with temporary accommodation, transportation and money whilst the application was considered.  A person or persons could claim asylum in the UK if they feared persecution from their home country and they had failed to get protection from authorities within their country.  Persecution had to be because of the following reasons:-

·       Race or religion

·       Nationality

·       Political Opinion

·       Anything else that put a person at risk because of social, cultural,  religious or political situation in a person’s home country.

The Director of Public Health stated that not every asylum seeker would ultimately be recognised as a refugee, but every refugee was initially an asylum seeker.  Those entering on resettlement schemes had different rights.  There were a number of different resettlement schemes including Ukraine, Afghan relocation, other resettlement schemes (such as Hong Kong) and Asylum seekers outside of these schemes. 

The Director of Public Health reported that Serco held the Asylum Accommodation and Support Service Contract with Central Government and covered the West and East Midlands, the Northwest and parts of the East of England.  Serco provided Housing Officers who supported Asylum seekers within hotels and dispersed accommodation, to signpost a range of services, such as GP registration, education, social prescribing and translation.  Migrant Help were the Central Government’s contracted provider under the Advice, Issue Reporting and Eligibility Contract and provided advice and assistance to people seeking asylum in understanding the asylum support system, across the UK.  He presented a flow chart showing the arrival routes and the process following arrival.

The Chief Operating Officer commented that the challenges Wolverhampton had faced were the same as many other Local Authorities when it came to asylum seekers.  The Council, along with many other Local Authorities and the Local Government Association had been engaging with the Home Office for many years to try and improve the way it carried out asylum policy.  In September 2021, after the Home Office had not made any changes to the dispersal policy, 7 Local Authorities led by City of Wolverhampton Council, had commenced a Judicial Review of the Home Office’s previous approach to the dispersal of asylum seekers.  There were two key areas that the Judicial Review focused on:-

·       A fairer distribution of asylum seekers across the Country.

·       A fairer funding settlement for those areas that had asylum seekers to ensure that they had the support they needed without unfunded burden on those authorities. 

The Home Office’s previous position was that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.