Transcript

Good morning, Cabinet. Good morning, everybody. I'd like to remind everybody that this meeting is being webcast live, so please remain seated when you're called to speak. Remember to turn off your microphone after speaking, in particularly in this chamber, because the microphones are a bit intermittent. I'd also like to ask you to switch off your mobile phones. If not, please set them to silent. So, I'll ask Hazel if you've got any apologies. Thank you. I've received apologies from Councillors Bell and Creswell. Thank you. The leaders quite rightly pointed out that in relation to Agenda 5, which is the County Hall Report, there are two exempt appendices, which are 8 and 10. They haven't been fully exempt from publications. We have published them, but they are redacted. In the event that Cabinet need to refer to any of the exempt parts of those appendices, then Cabinet would go into an exempt session. But it's very much hoped that this will remain a public meeting, and there is no need to do that. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I now call for details of any declarations of interest. So, remember, you only need to declare an interest where it relates to an item on today's agenda. Is there anybody? Okay. No members of the public have registered to speak also under public participation. Minutes? Yes, so I will ask the leader to sign as a correct record the minutes as amended of the meeting held on the 22nd of June 2025. So, agenda item number four, Worcester City secondary school update, sufficiency and place planning. I invite Councillor Foster to move and introduce the report. Good morning, Chair. I move the recommendations set out in 1A to H of the report. Before I ask Sarah Wilkins, Assistant Director, Education, Early Years Inclusion and Pupil Place planning to provide a summary of the report, or do I have a seconder? I second the approval of recommendations in the report, and I reserve the right to speak after Sarah Wilkins. Yes, and I will speak after the officer has spoken. Okay. I now invite Sarah Wilkins to provide a summary of the report, and then Councillor Foster to speak. Good morning. Good morning, sir. I am Sarah Wilkins, Assistant Director, with a responsibility around sufficiency of education. So, thank you, Cabinet. I will provide a short summary of the report and its appendices. So, in February 2025, the Cabinet agreed that due to the increased costs of delivering sufficient secondary school places for Worcester City pupils, that a detailed review and reprofiling of the capital programme to address sufficiency in education places was needed. And, as a result, we've come forward with this paper, which was to review those costs and review the options to meet sufficiency, both in the short term and longer term. This report is, as read, is accompanied by several appendices that provide the detail that underlines, underpins and informs this review. That includes the forecasting of people placed need, detailed feasibility studies of options for Worcester City schools, some summary and preference information, and a cost review of options. So, just briefly, secondary age provision for education has been expanding and accommodating a growing number of places since prior to 2020. And this report, as you will see in the initial pages, details that journey from 2021 of the development of plans and a cost programme and process to meet sufficiency needs and provide a permanent accommodation over a longer period. This includes the identification of land, appointment of Academy sponsor and programme of works, including highways to build a new school. The forecasting, and the detail is in Appendix 1, and actual numbers determine that additional places remain required for children for Worcester City. They are needed in peak years of 2026, smaller additional number in 2027, and then further significant increase for 2029. This forecasting information is kept under regular review by officers and is validated by the Department for Education. The report will show that there is an immediate need in terms of 2026 for the provision of places and works being underway with our local schools, schools who are mainly what we call single academies, so single academies trusts, not part of wider multi-agency, multi-academy trusts, sorry. This report, paragraph 25 to 35, detail that work undertaken with the schools to, the schools in Worcester and some schools more widely to address that immediate need for 2026 and 2027. This details a process with a particular focus on two of the secondary schools in Malvern to support this demand as those schools have capacity now to do that. You will have read that there is a transport risk implication in this and that risk is around cost and of course may have a risk around preference. But as Cabinet will understand, whilst we know the numbers of children, the specifics of the individual children wouldn't be known until the time. The report also then goes on to look at the development of permanent expansion of Worcester City schools for 2029 to 3031 and beyond. The report examines options including the review of the cost increase in the building of this new school that has been proposed for the Newtown Roadside. That is a really important part of this report and as was requested from the Cabinet in February 2025. You will see in the detailed finance section that to continue with the new school at the moment would require a further 3.4 million increase in the current capital programme. The risks are detailed from paragraph 42. So we go back to looking at the recommendations and looking at alternatives to meet at 26, 27 and 29 demand. Your appendices will provide some detail on that and it does consider the expansion of existing schools through use of creating permanent accommodation and taking additional year groups. There is some detailed feasibility work being undertaken, you will see that in the appendix and also quite sure that Cabinet appreciate that this requires very close working with those schools. And whilst feasibility has been undertaken agreement has to be made to choose and progress with options and that does involve the partnership of those schools. Those schools currently include Nunnery Wood, Tudor Grange, Bishop Perrone, The Chase and Dyson Perrins which could be expanded further. Finally, in terms of content of the report, the evaluation of the county hall site has highlighted a consideration for the use of education and in the process of master planning has made a very high level indication of this. However, whilst this would not serve an immediate need, a further feasibility would indicate a cost, a time scale and then the level of provision that could be provided from that site. So I just finally draw to the important parts of the report around financial impact, those drivers for reviewing costs and the significance of finance needing careful consideration to decisions being made. Particularly the reminder of decisions around the use of capital and its further risk to the whole of the education capital programme. The options of the review of the school you will see have been reviewed and benchmarking has been undertaken. Transport, as I've referred to already, does provide a revenue cost risk but that's detailed and analysed as far as it can be at this point. And that impact, you know, may be on transport but also travel preference. So I think that summarises the report, Chair, so if I hand back to you. Thank you for that. I now invite Councillor Foster to speak. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd like to thank Sarah and, of course, all the officers for the work that they've done and a very thorough explanation of the sufficiency requirements and the options. As a Cabinet, we take our statutory duty to provide the necessary sufficiency very seriously and we will address that. Thank you. First, I'd like to take you back to the previous administration's Cabinet agenda pack for the meeting of 6 February 25 and the Cabinet meeting of that day, the discussion itself. You obviously don't have that in the pack presented today, but paragraphs 92 and 93 of their Cabinet agenda read as follows. So this is paragraph 92. Given the increased costs of delivering sufficient secondary school places for Worcester City pupils in 2026 and 2027 and the cost impact of the associated highway works, the detailed review and reprofiling of the capital programme is recommended to address the sufficiency and education places needed for September 2026. The demand for secondary school places in Worcester City is forecast to peak in September 2029. It is recommended that the Cabinet approve a review of the capital programme to meet education sufficiency needs for this date. And then paragraph 93 of the Cabinet agenda pack. Worcester County Council's budget position is extremely challenging resulting in an application for exceptional financial support known as EFS. Therefore, the Council will require a need to review all assets as well as current and future capital schemes to ensure the most effective and efficient use of the Council's land and property for community purposes. No decision was made on that date about the new school or sufficiency. But that resulted in the work on the options you have heard and the options that are detailed thoroughly in the agenda pack we have today. And the work that has been carefully done by the officers which Sarah has presented here today. However, I went further than reading the Cabinet agenda pack. I listened very carefully to the webcast of the discussion that took place at the Cabinet on the date of 6 February. My predecessor, and for those of you who have the time and the interest, the webcast of the meeting is still available and to save you a lot of time. Because it took me a lot of time to listen to a two-hour meeting. For those of you who have saved the time, at one hour and 57 minutes in, my predecessor summed up by saying the Worcester school costs were escalating substantially. And then a rethink is necessary, finishing by saying that he would not be standing for re-election in the forthcoming elections and he would leave the final decision to his successor. So, that would be me. Much of the discussion at that meeting on education instead centred on the proposal to move as many children with low levels of special education needs and EHCPs into mainstream school settings, wherever possible. And by making these local mainstream schools, and by using local mainstream schools, local mainstream schools would in itself reduce the cost, or some of the cost of home to school transport. He did say that this wouldn't go down very well with some. Of course, he was absolutely right. The parent-carer forum and the Worcester-Send crisis were mortified. I was particularly taken by the contribution of Councillor Matt Jenkins. And that is one hour 48 minutes in. Who said, while he understood what had been said about transferring children with lower level needs into mainstream schools, he hoped that there was, I quote, scope for more centre provision to meet children with more complex needs. Noting that Fort Royal and Riverside were full with no scope for expansion. A matter you will have become increasingly aware is very close to my heart. He then also said that the new school costs were going up with questions needed over reviews. So back to the matter in hand, as a cabinet we have discussed the options, and whilst no decision on options to meet longer term demand has been reached, the following is clear. The only way the sufficiency of 90 school places can be provided for 26-27 is by creating bulgier groups at Dyson's Perrins and the Chase, and utilising surplus places at Dyson's Perrins. This utilises existing accommodation in existing schools where pupil numbers are low and continue to be forecast low. I am assured that Melbourne schools are keen to support this sufficiency need. And this is paragraph 34 of the options for 2026-2027 secondary school places, which is in the agenda packed today. So that decision to meet the sufficiency requirements is clear. As to the longer term, the Worcester County Council is in a financial emergency. At the recent Children's Scrutiny Panel, I mentioned that the Council's borrowing debt was £604 million. I note from the Treasury Management Annual Report we will discuss later that I was wrong. It is actually £607 million. As mentioned previously, this has resulted in an application for exceptional financial support. So, I now refer to Appendix 4 in the Agenda Pack. There are three options provided for the sufficiency provision of the 120 places in 28-29, the longer term provision. So, option one, to continue with the Newtown Road site, Sarah mentioned, would require a further 3-plus million beyond what was already in the capital programme. But the capital required in that programme is £62.5 million. And that would be made up by borrowing at least an extra £33.6 million. £30 million of which is in the current capital programme. We would then have £13.4 million basic need. The money comes from the DFE, which is good. Capital receipts, £10.7 million is what is in the Appendix. Four, this could be capital receipts by the Council, including but not limited to the disposal of County Hall. And then, S106 monies, £4.8 million, that's the developer's contribution. S106 monies come from the development in Worcester that have led to that increase in sufficiency, which, of course, everyone knows, go nowhere near towards meeting the cost of that sufficiency. But those are the rules. So, how does option one affect our financial emergency? Option one retains the current assumed borrowing for the scheme in the capital programme. This means that in the long term, the Council would have to pay back £33.6 million plus interest. In view of our financial emergency, this is the least likely option to pursue. Option two in Appendix four creates additional permanent places at existing Worcester City and Malvern secondary schools. Some Worcester City secondary pupils will not be able to access their secondary education in their home locality. This option, however, reduces borrowing. The capital required in Appendix four is £29.5 million. And this would be made up of just £3.96 million of borrowing. Not £33 million of borrowing. We would still get the basic need of £10 million from the DfE. The capital receipts would likely be £10.7 million and we would still get the S106 money of £4.81 million. How would one then describe this financial situation? Option two reduces Worcester County Council borrowing compared to option one by about £30 million. This means that over time, Worcester County Council will incur £30 million less debt and therefore incur lower interest costs. However, in the short term, option two would result in an additional one-off revenue pressure of about £4 million as costs incurred to date relating to the Newtown Road site could not be capitalised. So it is an immediate £4 million cost to the Council but to save £30 million plus interest over a much longer period. It is important to make clear the Council has not borrowed anything for this scheme yet. Therefore, option two does not reduce the £607 million borrowing that was on the balance sheet in the March 2025 accounts that we will look at later. It just means that it will grow by less. Still not a great financial outcome, but we are where we are, we start from where we are. Finally, option three. Option three is to create additional permanent places on the County Hall site. On the plus side, more Worcester City secondary pupils could access their secondary education in their home locality. Always a good thing. And it reduces borrowing. Borrowing. However, borrowing would be at least £7 million. And there are obviously issues that if County Hall site is used, we wouldn't get, the Council wouldn't get the proceeds from the sale of County Hall. On the downside, the land required to build the school, which is what I've said may reduce the capital receipts. There is also a high risk the sufficiency is unlikely to be deliverable by 2029. Nevertheless, Agenda Item 1G of this report authorises a feasibility study into such use of County Hall. We await this report in the autumn. We hope to receive it as soon as possible. But due to the high risk involved of not providing the sufficiency, we are most likely to rule it out. My conclusion, my conclusion, on balance, I urge the officers to continue the excellent feasibility work they've done of expanding the permanent capacity at existing Worcester City and Malvern schools as the Cabinet's most likely option. And if it is, and thereafter, to get the agreements, as Sarah has said, with those schools, should we end up choosing that option? Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Foster. I now invite Councillor Bowen to speak on recommendations in the report. Thank you, Chair. Next year, 90 Worcestershire children will need secondary school places that do not currently exist. For 2029, there will be another 120 children needing that secondary education. It is unbelievable that there is nothing yet in place for these children. It should never have been allowed to get this far without action being taken. This makes the efforts of Councillor Foster, Sarah Wilkins and her brilliant officers all the more impressive. They have found an affordable, sustainable solution in a short period of time. The work carried out in feasibility studies is comprehensive, it is detailed. And all involved are to be commended, including the schools themselves who have engaged so positively in this process. I am particularly pleased to see my old school, The Chase, being part of the solution, alongside other brilliant local schools like our old rivals, Dyson parents. Investing in our existing schools should always have been the priority. We have great schools who know what they are doing and I am delighted that they will now get the funding they need to expand and provide an education for a growing number of children next year and for the years to come, the next four years. The action being taken is clear, it is decisive and I fully support and second the recommendations. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I now invite any of the members of the Cabinet to speak. Good morning councillors and good morning the rest of you joining us today. I think we might have to get a grandstand if we get any more of the other parties joining us regularly for these Cabinet meetings. I will just say, we as reform with the control albeit minority and the leadership of the County Council were given one clear objective in the electorate. That was still, was and still is for change. No political point scoring, no empty rhetoric, just straight talking. Councils focused on cutting through bureaucracy and removing obstacles and making informed decisions quickly, fairly, with added value at every step. Our vision is simple, a councillor that works for everyone through honesty, efficiency and action. Stephen has and Rob soon will present these reports with that notion in mind. I cannot, we cannot guarantee councillors that Cabinet meetings will always last longer than 20 minutes. What I can guarantee is our group of 27 county councillors including this Cabinet are fully committing to spending less time caught up in party politics and more time getting things done for the people we all serve. We are here to work, not to posture and our focus today is on decisions that make a difference. Strengthening communities, enhancing public services and delivering value where it matters most. We will make it clear to the officers, this feasibility study stated in 1G must happen now, not months down the line in autumn when it is planned. The time for delay is over. We are also pushing for better value, the figures we've seen are too high and it does not reflect what we or the children need. We will not settle for less. This is about permanent places for our kids. Real solutions for real needs. Kicking this down the road helps no one. No more delays, no more red tape. Let it be known here today we are in control. We won't stall and we won't be sidetracked. We will not accept anything less of real progress. Thank you. Councillor AMOS Yes, thank you Chair. I am very happy to support the recommendation and I am pleased to see the urgency with which Councillor Foster is acting to get a decision on this matter after months of inaction by the previous Conservative Administration. From the information in both the report and the appendices, it seems to me the salient educational and financial issues are, first of all, one, that sufficiency can be met by extending facilities at certain Worcester City and Malvern schools. The educational advantage of this is that future pupils will be attending established schools staffed with experienced and high quality teachers with a wide range of curriculum choices and extracurricular provision. My very clear understanding, and it's probably more than that, but my very clear understanding is that Worcester City's secondary head teachers support this option as it would not have any detrimental effects on their pupils at present time or create any disadvantageous knock-on effects from a new school. And we must listen, and we must listen, Chair, to our heads. They are the professionals on the ground. The second salient point, I think, is that given the dreadful financial crisis the last Conservative Administration has burdened this Council with, the funding of any new provision must take due account of the budget crisis we have inherited. The site for a proposed new school at Newtown Road would be on an entirely unsuitable piece of sloping land with significant highways issues. So we would be looking not just at £60 million for the building itself, but additional highways works, bringing the cost, I suspect, up to a more likely £100 million, which would use up all the Council's capital available for the next four years. That would be irresponsible, leaving nothing for unforeseen circumstances and emergencies that always inevitably arise through the years. I know that Councillor Foster is a stickler for due process, and the recommendation includes a feasibility study for a new school on the County Hall site. But given its enormous cost of £120,000, together with the urgency of determining this whole issue, I would ask him, and I am sure he will, ensure that this study will be done as expeditiously as possible, ensuring that no Council taxpayer money or time are wasted. I am already concerned, Chair, whether any new school in either location could in any case now be completed before 2030, i.e. after the peak additional intake in 2029. Chair, these are just some of my observations at this stage for Councillor Foster to take into account before he brings back a future report on his preferred option. So I expect he may wish to address them at that point rather than today, but certainly I support the recommendation as it stands. Thank you, Councillor Amos. So I can see there are several councillors here present, and I invite people to, councillors, to ask questions. Councillor Kent. Thank you, Chair. Good morning, Cabinet. In parts, I welcome this report in terms of the way it has been brought forward. And I think, obviously, having been very close to this all the way through, there were a few salient points they wanted to make while you were considering the decision on which path you followed. I think I would point out, obviously, until the first quarter of this year, it was undetermined as to what the future of County Hall was. And I think the fact that you've got both reports on the same Cabinet agenda helps us somewhat in the way of determining which path you followed. So it was decided that County Hall was surplus to requirements in the first quarter of this year, following additional reports from officer recommendations to consider whether it could be brought back into use. So one of the options on here was only available to Cabinet and for the previous administration in the first quarter. Now, one of the things I've heard all the time is the references to borrowing and the huge cost. Obviously, when you're building schools and capital items like this, they're for many years in the future. 20, 25, 30, 40 years in terms of what they're doing. And I thought it would be useful to refer back to what the money actually costs and reference it to some of those things. Just so people don't think this is the amount of money that you would pull out of petty cash. So, for example, borrowing from the Public Works Loans Board, 36.3 million, over a period of 25 years, would cost some 2.3 million pounds a year in capital and interest repayments. Now, I realise that one of the recent children's panels, it was talked about the cost of special educational needs and the cost of looking after some of our children. And I think it was quoted that at one point in time, we had one child that was costing us the equivalent of 51,000 pounds a week, which actually exceeds the capital and interest repayments for an entire new school. That would work out at 2.7 million, where the cost per annum for that school would have been 2.3 million to build on the existing site with the figures produced by Councillor Foster. We also then talked about the other option of having to borrow 7 million pounds to put a school on the site of County Hall. And I'll go into that in a little bit more detail. But the cost of exercising or meeting the repayments and the interest on 7 million pounds is 479,000 pounds a year. So, I think you've got to get into perspective in terms of the way. I doubt anybody in here bought their first house without a mortgage. And effectively, what you were doing is you were stretching the cost of that provision over a period of years. Now, you're doing that for a number of reasons. Special educational needs provision, if provided at that school, as part of the build, could save an inordinate amount of money more than that in terms of what we've got with the home-to-school transport. So, I do hope, as part of the survey and the investigations and reports that you go into, you consider the impact of what savings a school would bring in terms of home-to-school transport. I know there's references to the increased cost for home-to-school transport to bus children from an area where they don't go to school to an area where that school provision will be. The costs of special education will need provision on a local level. And do bear in mind, this is a government directive, really, and they are carrying out huge consultation on EHCP and SEND provision. So, I think it's very important that we consider those aspects. In terms of other areas, obviously, I know that County Hall appears to only be able to support a fourth entry class. I would consider what we can do about the other options. But in terms of where I sit, and I think where the majority of the public would sit, we do feel there should be a new school. And I feel option three is probably the one that would probably be more suited to the residents of Worcestershire. Councillor KENT, can you sum it up, please, and ask the question? Thank you. Okay, I invite Councillor Foster to respond, please. Yes. Thank you, Councillor KENT. It's very straightforward. Councillor KENT mentioned that when people buy their first house, they always buy their house with a mortgage. Whilst we're in the EFS situation and this financial emergency, just for the public's benefit, just to put this in layman's terms, if you're struggling to pay your mortgage, which we are, you don't borrow more money in order to build an extension. Thank you, Councillor Foster. Councillor O'Donnell, your question or your comment? Councillor Jenkins. Councillor Jenkins. Thank you very much, Richard. Thank you, Chair, and thank you for the report. And a special thank you to Councillor Foster for referring to me. It's always nice to know that I was holding the previous administration to account. And I agree that the point I was making at the time was about the Newtown Road site in the wrong location. It seemed to be getting more expensive. And I'm glad to see that you've kind of agreed that really as the costs are going up, it was never the right place. And as my fellow Green Councillor knows at the hospital site, it's just, yeah, congesting there was dreadful. So glad that that is no longer kind of one of the options. Basically, I've got some concerns about option to expanding school sites. Obviously, some of the school's reference are in my division. And I certainly, one of them especially, is really, you know, a tight location. And they've said they could probably, you know, squeeze in, but you're kind of actually losing some of the play areas, etc. And I would really worry, as I think, I think the report says they haven't got enough play areas to begin with. So quite concerned about that. We're trying to squeeze in capacity within sites, which obviously, as most people know, they usually have huge congestion problems, although at the beginning, at the end of the school day. So, obviously, option three as well has got issues. I mean, just a question, really, about county hall sites. It refers to it as having to be demolished and then rebuilt, which obviously, without a huge amount of time. Is that really the case that it has to be demolished? Because certainly in discussions I've had in the past, it doesn't have to be demolished. There's obviously a cost of removing the rack, etc. But in terms of the cost of doing that and the long-term costs, which we've looked at and we'll hopefully come back to later, that could be far more, quite a speedy way of doing it in comparison to, yeah, complete demolish would take it out to the ages. So I wonder if we've, how much, if we're going to look at these, we need to look into that aspect of do it. And obviously, from a green perspective, the embedded carbon within a building is much greener to maintain an existing building, far more sustainable than to actually demolish it. So I hope that we can look into that as a viable option. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Jenkins. Councillor Foster, would you like to respond? Yes, thank you, Councillor Jenkins. Yeah, very constructive, thank you. And in the feasibility, we should certainly look into the option of not demolishing County Hall and just removing the rack, which I note from the Cabinet meeting. I listened to Councillor Kent referred to rack and brewing. I thought that was very amusing. Thank you, Councillor Foster. So, Councillor O'Donnell. Yes, thank you, Chair. I want to raise the paragraph 50, which I'm sure also concerns Councillor Amos, which is the feasibility of Christopher Whitehead Language College, which is in his division but also serves mine, and has concluded that there is insufficient external space to expand the school any further. I have concerns about this and the future of Christopher Whitehead. West Worcester is expanding rapidly with an extra 2,000 houses currently under construction and another 3,000 houses seeking plan of permission at Rushwick. Christopher Whitehead is already at capacity. It cannot expand any further. It is effectively landlocked. There is growing demand locally for a second high school to serve St. John's or to relocate, and I think this is probably more feasible, Christopher Whitehead to a new site in St. John's where it could expand further and provide additional sporting and send facilities. Any new school in East Worcester does not meet the demand in West Worcester. So I would be interested to know what the Cabinet think about expanding their policies or changes to these options, which would reflect the issues and what proposals they have to support Christopher Whitehead Language College in Councillor Amos' division, but also serves mine. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Councillor O'Donnell. Do you want to respond? Councillor Amos, please. Well, if Councillor Udall had given me notice of that question, I could have given a more detailed answer. Suffice it to say that I did, in fact, meet with the head, I think it was just last week, where we obviously discussed various issues. And what Councillor Udall is raising is a big issue. But obviously, the new housing that he's talking about, of course, is largely in Malvern. And we are looking not just at Worcester City schools, we're looking at the Malvern provision as well. So I'm happy to have a discussion with him afterwards. He and I often work together on these issues. But certainly, we're looking at Malvern schools as well as St John's schools. I think that's the thing you need to bear in mind. And the new residents will be Malvern Hills residents, not Worcester residents. Thank you for that, Councillor Amos. Okay, we have Councillor Birch. Thank you, Lida. My question is to Councillor Foster around the impact that the SWDPR is going to have on these number of pupils. So within the SWDPR, we're likely going to see up to 21,000 homes. That means we could see well over 10,000 students moving. And not all those students are going to be local already. There are going to be people moving from the cities into rural Worcestershire. Now, by just expanding, bearing in mind now, we're at capacity in a lot of our schools, the majority of schools in Worcester, the majority of schools over in Malvern, and within Joywich Bar. Do we really believe that expanding that provision is going to be able to fully deal with those increases that we are likely to see within the next 10 years? And do we not believe that we're better off biting the bullet now, accepting the cost, developing a new school to ensure that we are able to meet that future capacity, which is imminent within the next few years? Thank you, Councillor Birch. Councillor Foster? Thank you, Councillor Birch. Yes, the schools are at capacity, but I've been assured by the officers who've worked tirelessly and discussions with the schools. The schools support the expansion of their capacity. And when you look at the numbers, it is only because of the building that has taken place in and around Worcester that we're in this situation. We have, and you'll see from one of the appendices, the fall in birth rate. The birth rate in Worcester and the birth rate nationally is down to 1.4. In all eventuality, in 10 years' time, we'll have lots of spare places at lots of our schools and we may be able to address other issues, the most important of which is a SEND provision. Thank you, Councillor Foster. Councillor Allen? Yes, good morning, Councillor. And thank you, Councillor Foster and your officers for your report. I think it's very comprehensive. With my other hat on as a district councillor, obviously, I sit on Southern Area Planning for Malvern Hills District Council. And I've been aware for a long time that we've had the promise there's plenty of school places every time we get a planning application in and there won't be a problem. We're on the ground locally, we know for a while there is. And it's been ignored for far too long. And I'm glad you're now addressing it because it has been an absolute disgrace. So, initially, option two looks like the least worst option. None of them are good. But we are where we are. As you said, and I accept that. And it's obvious that we need to get over this peak in 2029. And you would query building a new school that by 2035 might be redundant is a colossal waste of money. So, option two, probably at the moment, but we've got to wait for the full detailed report and drill down into the figures. Option two does seem to be the better or the least worse option. My questions are, though, to you, Councillor, can you give me an idea of the distance children are going to have to travel to get to these schools that have expanded? Because I think that's quite important. And who's going to pay the cost of the home school transport, I hope, for these extra journeys, or these longer journeys? Hopefully not the parents. So, I don't know if you can answer those now, and you'll need to get back to me, that's fine. But I'm interested to hear what you've got to say. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Foster? I have difficulty with this as well, but I'll get used to it. Thank you for your extremely constructive comments. You're absolutely right. Option two is, that's how I would categorise it, the least worse option. But the officers have worked on the cost of the home-to-school transport cost, and it's... Yeah, it's 160,000 per annum per... It's approximately 160,000 per annum for six years, actually, and that is for the cost of the bulge year for 26, 27. It's a similar figure for the cost of home-to-school transport but that would be met as the home-to-school transport cost, not the parents. And as it's entrampled, it's around, as Sarah said, we're not altogether sure at this stage, but it's the distance in Worcester and Malvern schools from the surrounding parts of Worcestershire. Thank you, Councillor Foster. I've got Councillor Cross, who's had his hand up for a while. Yes, thank you. Thank you very much, and good morning, Cabinet members. Very encouraging to hear the call for meeting the SEN needs here. I think this is possibly one of the areas where we do have a good business case in terms of an invest to save. Certainly, you know, provision demand is not shrinking for SEN needs. And residents in one of the villages that I represent have been, at the same time, crying out for secondary school places, but at the same time, really concerned about the site, the location at Newtown Road. Because how on earth does it... If the road that is acknowledged to be at or over capacity, if you've got pupils living to the north of it and a school to the south of it, how are they going to cross twice a day without delaying... How are they going to cross safely without causing delay? There are also challenges about the attraction for children of the fast-food options on the A4440 Nunnery Park with very little in the way of safe pavement or route for them to get there. So, really challenges about that. As time has progressed... Gosh, it's a mighty building. As time has progressed, there's been the challenge that, you know, we need to have had spades in the ground to have met the existing secondary school need, which is a bulge that there's a risk, but that by the time we build for the secondary school, there will then not be anything. So, whatever we do, could it be... I would urge, could it be flexible? If we are going to build anything, build it good quality, don't skimp on it, don't reduce the options. If we... I would really urge high-needs SEN unit at County Hall site makes good sense in terms of where there are medical needs as well as a high correlation. So, actually, fewer people travelling around, having their needs met where they are, makes sense. It seems a good useful, you know, public use of the site. And so residents really are keen for the right decision to be taken. The worry is that we're too late getting spades in the ground for meeting conventional secondary educational need. If we take pressure off mainstream secondary schools who are being encouraged to include as many SEN pupils as possible within their cohort... Not that I'm for segregation in any way, but it's very difficult to meet the needs of pupils with high SEN needs adequately. We've got to do something in this sector. We have this opportunity. If we waste it, I don't think residents, we'll forget that in a long time. So, I appreciate it. It's not an easy decision. It'd be tempting to have a... Wouldn't it be lovely to be taking this decision four years ago? But we're not there. We're here today. Where's the need going forwards? Where's the... Where's the... You know, where's the return on investment likely to be? So, thank you very much. Thank you, Councillor Cross. Councillor Foster? Yeah, thank you, Councillor Cross, Again, for a very constructive contribution. I think we can work very closely together with your party on some of these future options. You are well aware that I referred in the scrutiny panel and on other occasions on Jade Bliss, the parent governor at Fort Royal School who made an outstanding spend-to-save proposal to actually build sense capacity for children with the most complex needs. I understand the need for lower-level requirements of EHPs to be in mainstream schools. I think we're all aware that that is a very positive way to integrate the children in the schools and with their peer groups and their best interests. But for those with complex needs to send the children miles off and out of county to the three independent schools, when with hindsight we could have, and we can't turn the clock back, we could have invested in more sense capacity in order to save significant sums of money on a fairly short payback. once we've reached some level of financial good health in the council, because we are in a financial emergency, we would look to build that capacity, Councillor Cross, and I'm sure you would support us in that endeavour. In the short term, yes, we've looked at the options of temporary classrooms to cover the bulge years in the council, and we will be recommending permanent good quality capacity as you recommend in the existing schools. Thank you, Councillor Cross. Thank you, Councillor Foster. Thank you, Councillor Cross. We've got room for two more questions now, which firstly we have Councillor Miller and then Councillor McVale. Yes, thank you very much. Thank you, Covenant. My concern is for the expansion of existing schools. When the schools, if we go back in time a little bit, Bishop Brown used to be called Samuel Subtle. Before that, Bishop Brown was down in the tithing, which is now a sort of care home, so probably many people that went to Bishop Brown. Before that, it was a girls' grammar school, so those people are probably in the care home now. But we haven't increased our road capacity, and all schools have a problem with capacity of roads and the way children are now delivered to school, and especially in inclement weather. The situation of trying to get a child to Bishop Brown's school is dreadful. If you go there in the morning, and I do, I've got grandchildren there, so I am one of the taxi drivers in bad weather that it's used, and it is dangerous. Now, expanding a facility in that point with the capacity, under capacity, of availability of accepting the traffic flow and how traffic can be tailored into there and dropped off and picked up. There is no capacity for drop-off and pick-up at that school. Also, we need to expand our children in physical activities. If we are taking up the grounds where children can actually go out and play sports, then we are taking something away from our children which they need to expand their lifestyle, their physical activities, and that helps them develop their mental activities as well. So, are we doing the right thing in expanding schools that have been there for a period of time that were never designed to cope with the capacity that they're dealing with now? Is that the right thing to do? And I would like the assurance that we can look into that and look how it does affect our children and how it affects not only our children but the residents that surround the schools. It's all the roads. Ashwood Road, you've got Droitwich Road, the bus services are there but in the morning they're absolutely to capacity. So, children going to school have not got the same, they're not treated the same, they're delivered, they don't integrate as much, they don't walk together as much to these schools. Are we looking at the right thing? And I would like assurance that we are looking at how we can expand these schools to the betterment of our children and the surrounding areas with the traffic flow. Thank you, Cabinet. Thank you, Councillor Miller. Councillor Foster? Yes, thank you once again, Councillor Miller for a very constructive contribution. I think we're all in agreement with you about the capacity of the roads of the expanding the schools taking ground that's used for physical activity. it's all very valid issues as regards and the way that school expansions affect the residents as well as the parents and the children who are going to the schools. But as regards the highway issues, I think on the option of the Newtown Road site, the highway issues likely to build that school would be significant. As Councillor Amos suggested, it might add an extra £40 million to the cost of building that school which is already prohibitive. So, yes, we will take these things into account. Thank you. Councillor McVeigh? Yes, thank you, Chair. And speaking from the perspective of a modern councillor with young people in my division attending both secondary schools at this point, it's really positive that both of them are able to offer more places and are willing to do so on a permanent basis, actually. But I'm not sure that offers the permanent solution that we might be looking for down the line. So, the first question is taking into account the new development of Kales Farm where most young people will undoubtedly attend Dyson Perrins School. Some will go to the chase. That will lead to a natural increased capacity need anyway. So, I'm sure that's been factored in but I just wanted clarification on that. My second point is that we've already mentioned the need to increase the number of send places in the county so the expansion of the autism base at Dyson is particularly welcome. And I thank the school for their support for this. But obviously further need will be met when we build the new school that's planned for Melbourne. In terms of the chase, I noticed this particularly, I didn't see it in the Dyson's papers, but it's really good to see EV chargers being installed for the school staff at the chase and provision made for additional bike storage for the children and young people. So, if we are looking at option two, and Councillor Miller just mentioned this actually, it's going to lead to more traffic on the roads because children and young people are going to have to travel further to get to school. So, we need to be more mindful of that, particularly adding to the congestion on the roads that are already congested, particularly around school pick-up and drop-off time. So, we also need to ensure that the school bus service is fit for purpose, and I would argue that currently it isn't, as would many of my residents of West Malvern in particular. and we do have a responsibility to ensure that cycling safely to school is possible. We recently launched our first bike bus to two primary schools in Malvern last Friday, it's our second one tomorrow, and it was fine because we had plenty of adults to marshal and look at junctions and things, but currently cycling to the chase just isn't safe for young people who aren't accompanied, let's say, especially along Chase Road, which is a national cycle path and it's just not safe for children and young people to cycle there. So, I really want that issue to be urgently addressed by Councillor Perks or whoever might want to pick that up. I know you're coming to Malvern soon, but I don't think we'll have time to get out to Court Road. But certainly, residents have come to speak to this council on previous occasions about the congestion at Court Road and the fact that it isn't safe at any time of the day we cycle, let alone at school time. So, thank you for allowing me to make those points. Thank you, Councillor McVeigh. So, quickly, if Councillor Perks can respond to the cycle question, but we'll go to Stephen Foster, Councillor Stephen Foster, for the first part about the education question. Thank you. Yes, again, thank you for a constructive contribution, Councillor McVeigh. we will, well, I'm going to hangover to the council of perks. We do need to look at the, make sure that the bus service is fit for purpose. We do need to make sure that the cycling to school is safe and there will be more traffic congestion and highway issues wherever we build the schools. Sorry, can I just say, as a child I used to cycle from Algar Avenue to the chase and, you know, I think you'd make a fair point, I wouldn't want to do it now. So, thank you. Thank you, Councillors. Councillor Perks, would you like to comment? Thanks. And, yeah, thank you for the point, Councillor McVeigh. With regards to the chase, it's not an issue I'm directly aware of, but I will check with the RORIC team, but if we could pick that up separately, I'd appreciate that. And just to touch upon the bus services, obviously there is a programme now announced further detail to come with regards to the expansion of on-demand to complement existing services, but there have been questions that I've put to the offices around existing services and where we have an interest in that, so that is already currently under review. Thanks for your response. The current service is contracted out by Herefordshire Council, I believe, because it transports children and young people from Herefordshire through West Malvern out to the chase. So that might be a complicated issue, but I do welcome further discussions on whether bus on-demand can help solve this problem. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor McLean. I think we've had a really good discussion this morning. So is Cabinet in agreement with recommendations set out in paragraphs 1A to H? Thank you. So we move on to agenda item 5, County Hall options. Do I have a proposer? I move recommendations 1A to K of the report. And before I ask Penny to give a brief synopsis of the report, do I have a seconder? I second the recommendations in paragraph 1A to K of the report. I will speak after Penny Unwin. So Penny Unwin to speak and after she's spoken I invite Councillor Wharton to speak. Thank you. Good morning. My name is Penny Unwin and I am presenting this report in my capacity as the interim head of corporate landlord. The history leading up to the position at County Hall was covered in the reports to Cabinet in July 24 and February 25. On the 6th of February 25, Cabinet declared County Hall surface to the Council's requirements. There are still a number of services and items in County Hall that need to be relocated before the building can be fully decommissioned and disposed of. The purpose of this report is to seek authority and funding in relation to relocating and remaining services, decommissioning the building and disposal of the site. The report is in three sections and considers arrangements for fully vacating the County Hall campus, the decommissioning of County Hall campus and the disposal of all or part of the County Hall campus. Section 1 of the report is the arrangements for vacating County Hall campus. Workforce arrangements for office accommodation continue as they are currently. The report recommends the relocation of the data centre to Pershaw Civic Centre. This was agreed by the Wichhaven executive. This recommendation is based on an options appraisal and will seem to be the most fit for purpose and value for money solution. The record office is currently on the County Hall campus. An options appraisal for the future of record storage was undertaken which considered the retention of the record office building on the site as well as various relocation alternatives. Commercial storage was estimated to be a lower annual cost than keeping the existing building and therefore the paper recommends that the records within the record office are relocated. Registration services were moved temporarily to the Hive when the building was closed and the service is proposing to remain onto the Hive on a permanent basis. The registers are in the County Hall vault currently and they're going to be relocated to the Hive in early 2026. Paper records currently stored in County Hall will be sorted and moved to Wildwood and all remaining items including other IT systems will be relocated by April 2026. Section 2, the decommissioning of County Hall campus. Since vacating the building in June 24 we have reduced the costs as much as possible whilst the services referred to remain on the County Hall site were required to maintain things such as heating and cooling and servicing of all the plants that supports that. The majority of these services will be moved out by April 26. Once they have been relocated the boiler house and the heating can be decommissioned. This means that from April 26 onwards running costs will reduce further as there will be much less maintenance required as well as a significant reduction in utilities. The countryside centre will be disconnected from County Hall and its own supply installed. Some costs will continue to be incurred until the site is sold such as security, basic power, maintenance of alarms and business rates. This report seeks to recommend the use of previously earmarked reserves for all these activities covered. Finally, Section 3, the disposal of County Hall campus. So we've taken advice on options for disposal with the objective of maximising the value of the asset whilst making allowances for any potential operational requirements. The report considered site constraints, public rights of way, other considerations in determining the likely development area and then we looked at a number of uses for the site. This included residential, retention of some car parking for council staff, care or medical use, retention of the record office and education. The report recommends that some land is retained for the council's own car parking requirements. The report, this report is considered as the same time as the Worcester City Sufficiency Report that we've just discussed. The options appraisal on County Hall showed that whilst a standalone school may fit on the site, there will be no space for any other development. However, it did indicate that there was capacity to include some education use alongside other developments subject to that detailed feasibility that we referred to in the previous paper. Therefore, this report recommends that in principle to dispose of the remainder of the site except for any further retention for education use and that final decision will be brought back to Cabinet in the autumn. The report seeks approval to commence the activities recommended to be undertaken prior to disposal, including further surveys, soft market testing and obtaining pre-planning application advice. So in summary, the feasibility on the use of part of the County Hall site for educational purposes will be undertaken. And the Worcester City Sufficiency Report will report back in the autumn with a recommendation. On the basis of that recommendation, we will also bring back a report to Cabinet in the autumn to confirm whether any land is required for education use and then seek approval to market the site. Ahead of that, we'll get on with the decant and decommissioning, as I said, the majority of which will be completed by April 26. We'll undertake further work to be ready for disposal of the site, including obtaining that pre-planning application advice. The site will be ready to market subjects of Cabinet approval in 2026, and that could mean an exchange subject to planning by the end of 26 and completion once planning is granted. Thank you. Thank you, Penny. Councillor? Thank you, Chair. First of all, I must apologise. In my rush to remove the recommendations, I've got to wish everyone a good morning, so please forgive me for forgetting my manners. Yeah, first of all, I'd like to thank the officers for the work they've done on this report. I think we all agree it's self-explanatory, well-structured, and leads naturally to the conclusions and recommendations within the report, and that those recommendations provide the optimum financial return for the Council whilst maintaining our short-term operational needs. As you've just heard on the debate on the school paper, we are committing to a feasibility study to see if there is any mileage in providing the additional education spaces on the site. But let me be quite clear, and as Councillor Foster alluded to, unless there are overwhelming arguments and significant financial advantages of doing that, we will not be going down that route, just to be clear, at the outset. We will be commissioned the feasibility review immediately after this meeting, if that's possible. It's essential, given the financial circumstances the authority is in, that we move this to conclusion, and we move it to conclusion quickly as possible. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Morton. Can I now invite Councillor David Taylor to speak? Thank you, Chair. I'm very grateful for the opportunity to speak on an issue of paramount importance to the residents of Worcestershire. I fully support Councillor Wharton's commitment to advancing this matter swiftly towards a resolution. Our collective goal is clear, to feel the best possible financial outcomes for our communities in the face of mountain economic pressures. Time waits for no man, they say, and indeed, County Hall has been waiting far too long, but nearly £4,000 per day. The cost of delay isn't just financial. It's a reflection of missed opportunity and a dwindling sense of civic action. We must ask ourselves how much longer can we afford to wait, not just in pounds, but in community trust, in progress and in purpose. I'm more than happy to support the Cabinet, and in particular, Councillor Wharton, whose expertise and dedication have been instrumental. I believe we all share a common goal of bringing this matter to a timely and effective conclusion. We will move forward with a collective spirit and ensure we deliver the best outcome for our communities. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Taylor. Are there any other members of the Cabinet that wish to speak? No? No? No? Okay. Okay. I'll ask the... Yeah. Is there any questions? Thank you, Councillor Kent. Yes, I've got a few questions, actually. I'm getting slightly mixed messages in terms of what's been said in terms of a certain direction, so I'll go for some clarification. I did bring to Cabinet last year an informal meeting, a proposal to use that site as the school, and I just didn't note within the papers, although they're heavily redacted in particular areas, that it shows the full extent of that educational area or campus that is there. And I do hope that when you're looking at the options that are available, you consider the opportunities to share resources and up the level of those resources with other schools, particularly in regard to sporting facilities and everything else as well, because there's a number of schools in that area, and obviously the accesses are already there. I suppose the other thing is, as well, is what the disposal does. So if you do dispose of it for housing, for example, when you go to that thing, you are creating another need or demand for housing places, and that clearly has to be taken into consideration as well. I suppose the one thing I would like clarification, because I get one view that this is going to happen now, and then the other view that we want to go back and look at the costs of refurbishing County Hall. When we looked at those costs, they were so high, they dwarfed the cost of building a new school on the site, in terms of, I believe, the remediation of the roof was over 30 million. The cost of fire prevention was something like 2.5 million, and that's before you even start trying to get it up to an EPC level that would actually render it rentable. So just like clarification, the new Cabinet is aware of those costs and those considerations, and that you don't go off a rabbit hole trying to fix something that, from all intents and purposes, is broken. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Kent. Councillor Voughton? I think there's about three or four questions in there, Councillor Kent. But, yeah, we will be considering everything in the round. We're not looking at this in isolation, but the point I'm trying to make is we have financial pressures which you're well aware of, and this needs to be brought to a quick conclusion to alleviate some of those financial pressures. So, yes, we're not going to hang in isolation. Yes, we will take things in the round and just the things you just mentioned, but we've got this financial issue and that's going to be our driving force in the short term. Thank you, Councillor Voughton. Councillor Rizal, I must apologise because you were meant to be first and I did jump across. It's fine. I always accept your apology every time you are out for one. Chair, I have been asked to speak on behalf of some of the local residents as the county council is not present today. There are a lot of concerns about the future of the land. It's a big asset to the council, so whatever happens on site will have an impact on local residents, especially when you consider 3,000 school pupils already use Specialty Road on a daily basis and we have to be mindful about the effects of the consequences of adding to that. So I'm seeking some basic assurances that residential neighbours will be consulted and involved in any of the discussions about the building's future before any final decisions are made. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Councillor Voughton. Councillor Voughton. Sorry, just to be clear, are you saying that we should be consulting residents on what we do with the site or are you asking that we consult them if there's going to be new housing development, et cetera, on the site? I'm just seeking assurances that residential neighbours will be consulted about the future of the site before any decisions are taken, whatever those decisions may be. We can certainly ask opinion. Whether we do a full consultation is some of the ways of slowing things down. But we can certainly take into account any local objections, absolutely. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Inglisle. Councillor Jenkins. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Councillor. Obviously, just a concern and then a very specific question, which may be more for the officer than yourself. But obviously, you talk about, you know, we want to get as much money almost from the site because of the financial difficulties. Obviously, that might not be in the best long-term interest. A short bit here. Some quick financial fix may not be the best for the county and for the area as the previous Councillor just added. But just one specific question about the countryside centre. Because obviously, at the moment, it is, yeah, gas and electricity comes from County Waterloo. So I understand we want to move that across. But as someone I say, who no longer has gas in my house, obviously the future is, it's going to be, everything's going to be electrified anyway, you know, cooking facilities, heating. Is this kind of, rather than paying a huge cost of redirecting gas supplies to the building, we just go, well, we just need electricity and then we can adapt to Countryside Centre to do that. So maybe if that could be included as an option. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Jenkins. Councillor Walton. Anything to add, sorry. Thank you. Yeah, we're doing a feasibility on both the gas and electricity disconnections. There's a gas substation very close by. So we'll have a look at that in the round as well as the future energy needs we're building. Thank you for that. Councillor Cross. Thank you very much and welcome again Cabinet Members. So, County Hall, yeah, there's clearly a problem with the building. There are two problems. One of the Legionella and one of the RAC. that reinforced concrete or crumbly concrete problem. So that, normally I would advocate for refurbishment. I think that, you know, given the potentially very different needs relating to SEM unit, I think that could create complications and uncertainties which then bears a financial cost. So, you know, I would happily support actually redevelopment there. I think that gives a clean slate and a flexible building. One sort of, my question here really, I suppose, is slightly more tangential but it's fundamental to the whole, you know, Worcester is our county city. We don't hold any meetings, any county meetings in Worcester since demise of County Hall. So just, you know, would members be open to options or happily, properly look into the feasibility of having council meetings in Worcester because there seems to be a centre that feels not included within our business. Thank you very much. Thank you. That's a very valid question. Councillor Wharton? Yes, absolutely. It's interesting. I was chatting to Councillor Amos about this very issue yesterday. Obviously, she was newbies. It is what it is but Councillor Amos did mention that yesterday and that's absolutely something we're willing to look at. Thank you very much. Thank you, Councillor Wharton. Can I now ask Cabinet to vote on the recommendations? Agreed. Agreed? I'd say that was agreed. Thank you. We'll move on to Agenda Item 6 which is Worcestershire's charge point delivery. Do I have a proposal for this? Thank you, Chair. I move the recommendations in paragraph 1A to B of the report. Before I speak to the report and also invite Emily Barker Head of Planning and Transport Planning. Do I have a seconder? Yes, Councillor Perks. I'll second that and I reserve my right to speak afterwards. Thank you, Chair. Thank you for the opportunity to update you on the progress and next steps regarding the electric vehicle EV charge point delivery program. a key initiative for supporting and improving infrastructure for residents without off-street parking. The program is fully funded through central government plans via the Office for Zero Emission Vehicles or OSEF forming part of the national effort to phase out the sale of new internal combustion engine vehicles by 2035. Worcestershire County Council along with all local highways authorities has been allocated funding through the Local Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Levy Fund. This includes 3.48 million in capital to deliver the charging infrastructure 624,000 in revenue funding including a further 218,000 expected across 2025-26 to support project development and strategy work. The focus is clear provide accessible reliable EV charging solutions for those without private off-street parking enabling an equitable transition to electric vehicles. During the previous administration in June 2024 approval was granted to consult on the draft EV strategy and proceed with developing three-stage business case required by OSEF to access levy funding. We are now progressing towards stage 3 of the business case which incorporates the outcome of the procurement process. A further Cabinet discussion will be required to approve the final business case submission and enter into contracts. At this point I'd like to hand over to Emily Barker, Head of Planning and Transport Planning. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you members. So just to outline the procurement process, the procurement process started in February 2025 and as set out in the requirements of this grant we have to procure both 7 to 22 kilowatt hour charges and 50 kilowatt hour charges with the majority of the charges being the lower 7 to 22 kilowatt hour powered charges. They have to be separate contracts again that is set out in the rules of this grant and that is just to prevent monopoly provision. Throughout this process, Wichitashire County Council have been working with our partners at Midlands Connect which is the regional transport body and the reason we have done this is so that we can benefit from additional data, soft market testing and expertise throughout the process and throughout this procurement. We have taken a joint approach with Warwick County Council, Leicester County Council and Rutland through the procurement. However, when we enter into contract it will be on the basis of Worcestershire only and there is no shared responsibility with our partners that we have been working with. The contracts will be individual and separate. So just to provide you with the headlines of the contract, it's a 15 year contract with a one year extension option. As I said, there are the two lots. In the 7 kilowatt to 22 kilowatt hour chargers, there will be around 700 chargers and that's about 1,400 sockets which means that 1,400 cars could charge at the same time. 50 kilowatt hour chargers, about 120 chargers and that's 240 sockets. the benefits of the county include a gross margin share of a minimum of 2% and £35,000 from each lot so a total of £70,000 paid annually for contract management and that will be increased by inflation again annually. The requirement of the grant is that this forms the basis of the stage 3 business case and subject to approval this is then submitted to OZ to give us the final approval to secure the capital funding for this project. Thank you for that. Okay, I now invite members of the cabinet if they wish to speak about the report. Councillor Bowen. Thank you Chair. I'm very pleased that we're backing this scheme. It shows we take the challenges of climate change seriously. We support sensible solutions that benefit the community but which are affordable. That is how it should be and I fully support the recommendations and look forward to seeing this plan come to fruition. Thank you. Thank you Councillor Bowen. So I have a couple of electric vehicles within my family and have experienced issues whilst charging availability especially when travelling long distances. So I appreciate the requirements for more availability so I agree to these recommendations. So do we have some questions? Oh several. Councillor Jenkins. He's better looking than me. No comment. I need a question. Thank you for the report. Obviously very keen to get this in as soon as possible. Just understanding the process really and how it works. Obviously I've got areas in my division such as the Arboretum in Worcester where basically about 10-20 people have got off-road parking. it's literally but I know people who when I was selling my second hand electric car people were keen to buy it then realised how the hell am I going to charge it? I can't so I'm not interested. So there's big demand there so this is really key. So kind of an understanding of what the process would be how we as councillors will be involved because obviously if you're going to think you understand this you're going to cite some places in a kind of a little charging hub on various streets in certain locations kind of get an idea of how that's going to be done and maybe how to prioritise which areas it should go to first because obviously there's certain areas other areas in my division it's probably not as urgent. It's a place like the Arboretum where nearly everyone has nowhere to charge. How do I get those to the top of the list? That's what I'm really interested in. So questions around there so thank you. Thank you Councillor Jenkins. Councillor Jenkins thank you. I'm going to reply as it's more of a technical question. So within the contract we've set out the broad polygons where we expect the charges to be located. What we haven't done is given them exact locations say it must be on this street outside exit house number. So as we move on from the air from today and if we get the approval of the contract being signed we will then enter into detailed negotiations with the charge point providers. One of the requirements on the charge point providers is that they undertake local consultation on the precise locations of the charges. So there will be opportunities for both members and the public to input into that process. Thank you. Councillor Yudel. Yes thank you I think you may have just answered my question but I'll ask it anyway. One of the issues raised with me on a regular basis is the need for all taxi fleets from Worcestershire to be able to transition to electric vehicles. An electric taxi costs in the region of £70,000. So it's a major investment for any taxi driver and they need assurances about the ability for charging machines to be available. This will require on-street charging machines at taxi ranks in city and town centres but this doesn't appear to be under much consideration but it would enable us to set a target for all electric taxi fleet by 2035 which is an ambition worth pursuing. Can you confirm what consideration has been given to support the taxi fleets in Worcestershire to enable them to transition from dirty diesel to clean electric? Thank you for that valid question. Would you like to answer that Councillor Pertz or? Thank you. Thank you. So this funding and the rules set by the government are specifically aimed at residents who don't have off-road charging. It isn't aimed at taxes. Now there has been other funding in the past. Other funding streams aimed at taxis specifically. Now there will be nothing to stop a taxi using the charge points but it's not a specific aim of this funding stream from the government. Can I ask officers and members to go away and think about the consequences of not ensuring taxis have on-street charging facilities at taxi ranks because it will make a major difference to the rolling out of a taxi fleet which is all electric. I'd just like to come back with that Councillor Udorff. My understanding which has just been confirmed over and above the fact that this is being set out for residential usage is that taxi fleets are currently under the remit of District Council and not county. And so I suggest you speak and raise the question there. Thank you. In absolute fairness we've been asking District Councils for the County Council to allow this to happen for some time. The County Council own the highways and are the people enabling charging machines to go in place or not. So the decision is County Council responsibility. But we can talk about it outside the meeting if you wish because it is an urgent need for something to happen to enable a taxi fleet to actually make that transition. Thank you Councillor Udorff. I would like you to both speak about that later. Thank you very much. Okay we've got another question from Councillor McVeigh. Thank you. Thank you Chair. As was stated in the papers and has been said today this strategy is fundamentally important to helping us reach our net zero targets and I'm delighted to hear Councillor Bowen say that he takes the climate emergency seriously here this morning. I live in a flat so I'm one of 30% of residents who were unable to charge my vehicle at home which makes it more expensive for me to charge my car than if I had got facilities at home. On most occasions this is fine if a little expensive but on Tuesday I was sitting in my car preparing for this meeting while it was charging a few miles away from home because the public EV charges near my home in Malvern were all offline which is quite unfortunate when that happens. There's an unidentifiable problem with the charges at Witchhaven District Council and none at all here as far as I'm aware at White Forest District Council. This can lead to what I'm sure people in this room who've got an EV will be it's called range anxiety and it's something that stresses us out because we start to panic when we can't charge our cars up. There's also a distinct lack of rapid EV charges meaning that even my modest Renault Zoe takes about six or seven hours to charge in Malvern and if linking up journeys there are no charges at Malvern Railway Station and I'm told yesterday that the columns at Worcester Parkway have been offline for some time as well. Top up destination charging is crucial for residents and visitors to the county. I'm often trying to point people who are here in Malvern to visit for the day or a couple of days to the nearest EV charger that's working and that was difficult the other day because I actually wanted to use it and I was worried that they would run out if I told people to get there before I did which is very selfish but I still told them where it was. So even as we're transitioning away from petrol and diesel powered vehicles there will be a positive impact on air quality, health, inequality and the visitor economy. One thing I wanted to mention today was about charging in our rural communities because I know that we're predominantly looking at WCC owned land I think for the rollout of this scheme but could consideration be given perhaps to community centres, village halls, that type of thing in the more rural areas of our county of which there are many. So to sum it really I welcome the recommendations in the report and I'm looking forward to the debate although it's probably almost finished now and hope Cabinet will make the right decision in progressing this today. Thank you. Councillor McBae. Thank you Councillor McBae. Councillor Per deeds? You're right. The scheme it must be on small land but irrespective of where that as it is across the county so we can county so we can go away and as a part of that review and utilisation around the current polygons we can review what that looks like thank you councillor allen you have a question yes thank you chair uh good morning and council can i thank you emily and uh councillor perks very good comprehensive reports again and recommendations it's really just to make a plea for upton the smallest town in worcestershire the biggest one for festivals and we've got the blues festivals just started there's going to be thousands and thousands of people come in and we have very little uh charging capacity for electric cars in upton now obviously as we get closer to 2035 the balance is going to change whether you believe in climate change or want to keep ic cars it doesn't make any difference the government's spoken and but you know in three or four years time we're going to have a big change we're going to have a lot more people come into upton for all the festivals which upton needs to survive coming in electric cars so i understand it's for on street parking so it's really to make a plea that you and the officers work with me when you start making decisions looking at upton because we certainly need to to start looking at new street which is residential parking and also visitors parking and quite a lot of other areas in upton but the obvious ones you can't use because they flood i'm afraid so i would really urge you and ask can you give that commitment that you will work with me as you get closer to it please thank you thank you for your question yeah thank you um as emily has said we will be working with local um consultations and working with yourself as councillors so absolutely you have my own our commitment that that will happen and i would also like to make a comment on the continual um notion that there is a belief that we as a party do not believe in climate change and hope that this draws a line under the topic at no point has anyone said that we do not believe in climate change what we do not agree with is the lofty and laudable notion of net zero and the time frame that is being committed to that what we do believe is that sensible changes and where we can improve the environment they will be taken and undertaken but i think uh councillor jenkins would agree with me that as a current percentage on a global basis at 0.7 percent what we should not be doing as a country and as a community a county is punishing those most vulnerable with additional charges those that work such as farmers in agriculture and pushing agendas that will not make a difference as a council we're committed to improving the environment for activity uh communities and that will continue at no point has anyone said you do not believe in climate change thank you thank you for your question uh so in summary this program delivers tangible progress towards the council's environmental goals with zero direct cost to the authority leverages strong regional collaboration and provides a platform for longer-term strategic investment for electric vehicles thank you thank you councillor perks um i now ask cabinet to vote on the recommendations in paragraph 1a and b of the report is that agreed agreed agreed thank you we now move on to uh agenda item seven uh the treasury management annual report 2024 to 2025. do i have a proposal for this yes chair i move recommendation 1a and b of the report okay can i invite phil rook to uh speak please good morning all uh my name is phil rook chief financial officer for the county council report you've got ahead of you into this morning summarizes the treasury management performance and provision position to the council for 24 25 county council's treasury management activities are conducted with the framework of the citfa code of treasury management our annual treasury management strategy was approved by full council in february 24. cabinet received a mid-year report in november and today you have the final report which is the out turn of the end of the financial year this report is also going to audit and governance tomorrow in terms of that and i just want to assure all members that we invest when we invest our funds we do it prudently and security and liquidity is always before return a couple of highlights in the report table one shows the balance the council's balance sheet at the year end so we've got borrowing at the year end of 607 million uh that's to put a bit of context it turns out we've got assets of around 1.2 billion on the county council's balance sheet table five shows uh the performance in year which was a strong performance for this year and it actually alleviated the council's financial position so when you show when you're showing the report we did well in terms of treasury management activity some of the slippages in the capital program reduced our MRP and the interest payable in terms that so that did help that position uh during the year and i can confirm to all members that all treasury management activity complied with the code practice and the councils and your treasury management strategy one thing just finally to say which we need to be on the radar looking forward is the impact of DSG on our treasury management activities so we're all well aware that's a 98.2 deficit at the moment which is not funded by the government this will impact on our activities so this last year we lost interest of around three to four million in terms of that that's an impact and a cost a real cost to the council and as this moves forward as the statutory override increases we're going to it's going to make put pressure on our treasury management activities because we're actually servicing the debt that we don't get the money for from the government so that is one to watch and i would be lobbying in terms of uh colleagues as well to push this to government as well so it's just one to watch because we do manage our cash balance as well and you as you can see from the report but it's just one of the areas that everyone needs to be aware of in terms of that thank you thank you for that councillor warden yes thank you for that to fill i mean as you can all see it's a very detailed and technical report um and there's not really much i can add to uh for his introduction it is a backwards look and it is to make sure or ensure we comply with our treasury management strategy so i have nothing else to add to that thank you thank you thank you is there a seconder for this yes joe i i second the recommendations set out in paragraph 1a to 1b of the report i would also like to reference the dsg 98.2 million pound deficit uh that i've referenced many times before and which hasn't always gone down particularly well obviously the ifs refer to the statutory override as an accounting for which it is uh it was put in place by the conservative government uh it the the current government have extended it by two years which obviously we all know the expression is kicking the can down the road uh uh i i support uh the the labor member rachel of the uh who's who's who who who's just been suspended as a member of the of the party she's sitting as independent because she wasn't keen on the uh removal of the personal independence payments and uh the disability issues clearly uh uh she referenced this morning i listened to the radio on the way here she she referenced uh the fact that there isn't the autumn white paper on special educational needs and uh obviously if that doesn't go the way that she's hoping um she and many others will be voting uh voting against uh voting against government proposals but we look forward uh that's phil and and uh councillor wharton we look forward to a solution to this problem so that uh this dsg figure uh doesn't rise from 92 million to 200 million which is which as things stand at the moment is the most likely outcome it's a mess uh yes thank you councillor for foster uh i'd normally invite members of the cabinet to speak but we have no more speakers so can i ask if there's any other councillors wishing to speak councillor kent yes thank you and i'll be brief just a couple of points of clarification that maybe the uh cabinet member might be able to answer all with the help of the financial officer looking at the papers the borrowing less interest and investment income is something like uh 14.2 million i believe taking the 19.2 million interest payment away from the 5 million that's received in terms of investment giving a net interest figure of 14.2 million payable by the council with a sort of close to a half a billion budget which is under three percent i believe of our actual income in terms of being spent on interest clearly has been discussed in terms of the dedicated sports schools grants and the other pressures that we're receiving as as councils that is what is putting the council under the huge financial pressure the home school transport the special educational needs adults and obviously children's care with the horrendous costs that were divulged in terms of the various provisions that are being having to put out there so i'd just like just clarification in terms of obviously when you're borrowing money you're investing it and it has a return so in terms of that economic return by borrowing for schools and other things do we have any understanding of what that economic return is councillor walton yes thanks uh councillor kent you're absolutely right there are a number of financial pressures uh um on the authority and borrowing costs are not the biggest of those but most of those costs are outside of our control the statutory services we have to provide what we're talking about is controlling the expansion we can control and we can control how much we borrow for whatever reason in a financial utopia yeah we'll borrow for this and we'll invest in that we're not in that financial position thank you thank you councillor walton no more questions okay then i am asked that the cabinet vote on the recommendations in the report all in agreement okay thanks for that agreement so that concludes the business of cabinet and the end of the meeting which i think is a good time compared to our last one thank you very much so foreign