Agenda and minutes

The Chairman asked all those present to observe a minute’s silence to reflect on the passing on of Nelson Mandela.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 19^th September 2013 were approved as a true and correct record and signed by the Chairman.

The Deputy Monitoring Officer announced that all Members present, in accordance with the Localism Act 2011, had applied for and had been granted a dispensation to consider any matter which had a bearing on the setting of the Council Tax (item 15 on this agenda). Failure to grant this dispensation would have impeded the transaction of the business because of the number of Councillors having the same disclosable pecuniary interest.

The Deputy Monitoring Officer also announced that Councillors David Allen, Howard Bairstow, Jeff Beck, Brian Bedwell, Dominic Boeck, Jeff Brooks, Hilary Cole, Roger Croft, Richard Crumly, Adrian Edwards, Sheila Ellison, Marcus Franks, John Horton, Carol Jackson-Doerge, Alan Law, Mollie Lock, Royce Longton, Alan Macro, Tim Metcalfe, Andrew Rowles, Anthony Stansfeld, Julian Swift-Hook, Ieuan Tuck and Tony Vickers, in accordance with the Localism Act had applied for and had been granted a dispensation (by the Standards Committee) to consider Recommendation 4 of Item 15. Failure to grant this dispensation would have impeded the transaction of the business because of the number of Councillors having the same disclosable pecuniary interest.

Councillor James Podger declared an interest in Agenda Item 15 and reported that, as his interest was a disclosable pecuniary interest, he would be leaving the meeting during the course of consideration of the matter.

Councillor Emma Webster noted that although she had disclosed a disclosable pecuniary interest in the Motion relating to the Closure of Public Houses at the previous meetings she would not be declaring an interest this time (see Item 14) as the declaration previously made was no longer relevant.

Councillors Gwen Mason, Keith Woodhams, Roger Croft, Royce Longton, Tony Vickers, Carole Jackson-Doerge, Gordon Lundie, Andrew Rowles, Dominic Boeck and Graham Jones declared an interest in Agenda Item 16, but reported that, as their interest was personal and not prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest, they determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.

Councillor Anthony Stansfeld declared an interest in Agenda Item 18, but reported that, as his interest was personal and not prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest, he determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.

Councillor Tim Metcalfe declared an interest in Agenda Item 17, but reported that, as his interest was personal and not prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest, he determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.

Councillors Royce Longton and David Rendel declared an interest in Agenda Item 14, but reported that, as their interest was personal and not prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest, they determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.

The Chairman reported that he and the Vice Chairman had attended 69 events since the last Council meeting. The Chairman thanked Councillor Adrian Edwards and Councillor Jeff Brooks for attending Remembrance Day events on behalf of the Council.

The Chairman highlighted a number of events that he had attended including very colourful Diwali evening, the unveiling of the innovative duck seat at the Linear Park, a scout’s breakfast at Burghfield, the signing of the contract with BBOWT, the Aldermaston nativity Play, the switching on of the lights in Hungerford, Thatcham and Newbury, the McMillan Concert at St Nicolas’ Church and a number of citizenship ceremonies held at Shaw House.   

The Chairman thanked all the Officers and Members that had attended his quiz on the 21 November 2013 which had raised £960 for his chosen charity ‘Children with Cancer UK’. He congratulated the ‘Bright Blues’ on winning the quiz.

Councillor Chopping observed that the young people of the district continued to act as an inspiration for all residents. He had thoroughly enjoyed the Berkshire Maestro’s concert at the hexagon Theatre in Reading. He also highlighted the primary school carol concert event at St Nicolas’s Church.

The Chairman reported that he had been fortunate to be present at an event held at XTRAC the previous day where the Duke of Kent had made an award to apprentices at this organisation which was a world leader in its field.

The Chairman provided Members with an update on the Motion proposed by Councillor Goff and seconded by Councillor Brooks which was debated and adopted by the Council at the September 2013 meeting regarding the potential closure of Newbury Magistrates Court.  The Motion required that the chairman to write to a number of Government departments and individuals in order to put forward the wide concerns of this Council bearing in mind the cross party support which there was.  The Chairman sent a number of letters as requested.

Councillor Chopping confirmed that all three of the local MP's Alok Sharma, John Redwood and Richard Benyon had contacted HM Courts and Tribunal Service. The Chairman also received a response from the Minister with responsibility for HM Courts and Tribunal Service Shailesh Vara MP and support from the Police and Crime Commissioner for the Thames Valley.

A full response was also received from Chris Jennings the Delivery Director – South East for HM Courts and Tribunal Service.  In his response he confirmed that there were no current plans to close the court but he indicated that his service was required by Government to continually review its assets and estate in order to provide an efficient service to Court users within budgetary constraints.  He went on to address court usage and listing but suggested that this was a matter for local Magistrates to comment upon.  However in order to cover this aspect he offered a meeting with him and the Clerk to the Thames Valley Justices David Richmond and this is scheduled to take place on the 22  ...  view the full minutes text for item 50.

The Chairman explained that the Junior Citizen Award was given to a young person from West Berkshire who has excelled in one of the following categories :

• Has helped someone in trouble
• Has achieved excellence in school or an outside activity
• Has made West Berkshire a better place to live and work
• Has demonstrated an act of bravery

He thanked the independent judging panel (Mrs Pat Eastop, Ms Lindsey Appleton and Mr John Aldis)who had met to consider the nominations.

Councillor Chopping noted that the panel had decided to award two Highly Commended certificates this year. The first of these certificates was awarded to Simon Ball. He was nominated by Mrs Orsolya Sirok, Manager of the Sue Ryder shop in Newbury for his voluntary work at the shop. The panel was very impressed with the voluntary work carried out by Simon, which they felt showed great commitment and a very caring attitude.

The second recipient of a Highly Commended award was Edward Collins.  He was nominated by his mother, Caroline Lane, for his work, both on a weekly basis and for a week long summer camp, teaching young people with Down’s Syndrome how to ride bikes. The panel felt that Edward’s caring attitude was evident and were sure that his work was very rewarding.

The third place winner was Josh Booker who was nominated by Norma Maggs of Sovereign Housing Association for his dedication and hard work as a volunteer at Riverside Community Centre. He helped to organise and run events that were put on for the younger members and often helped coach them in the various sports and activities. The panel noted how involved Josh was in the Community Centre and its activities and how his mature attitude and very positive outlook has led the children to look up to him as a role model.

In second place was Chris Weedon who was nominated by Mrs Jenny Johnson, his form tutor at Kennet School, for his voluntary work with Thatcham Town Disabled Football Club. He had coached the football team, and spent time socialising with the young people providing them with opportunities to develop their social skills and a place where they could feel valued and equal.  The panel was extremely impressed by the huge commitment demonstrated by Chris over three years.

The winner of the overall Junior Citizen of the Year Award for 2013 was Chloe Johnson who received four nominations from friends and members of the local community including the youth worker at Greenham Community Centre. Chloe was an active Youth Council member of the Greenham Community Youth Project when she was diagnosed with Leukaemia in November 2012. Chloe had retained her sense of humour and determination throughout her illness, starting a new college course, continuing to work with the Youth Project and fundraising for the John Radcliffe Hospital. The panel felt that Chloe’s bravery, determination and commitment to help others made her a worthy winner of the Junior Citizen of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 51.

Councillor Alan Macro presented a petition containing 30 written signatures and 12 electronic signatures (albeit that two of these were repeated giving a total of 40 signatures) relating to requested road safety improvements for people crossing the A4 road at Wigmore Lane, Theale. Councillor Macro was informed that the petition would be referred to the Highways Service for a response which would be set out in a report to be considered via Individual Decision or by the Executive.

Councillor Jeff Beck presented a petition, on behalf of Mr Peter Logan, containing 290 signatures relating to the possible withdrawal of the current School Crossing Patrol located in Fir Tree lane. This petition would be fed into the consultation on the proposed changes to the budget.

(There were no questions received relating to items not included on the agenda)

There were no public questions received.

The Council noted that, since the last meeting, the Licensing Committee had met on 26^th September 2013.

The Council is asked to note that since the last meeting of Council, the Personnel Committee met on 30^th October 2013.  Copies of the Minutes of this meeting can be obtained from Strategic Support or via the <span style='www.westberks.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=2510' ?>Council’s website.

The Council noted that, since the last meeting, the Personnel Committee had met on 30^th October 2013.

The Council noted that, since the last meeting, the Governance and Audit Committee had met on 25^th November 2013.

The Council noted that, since the last meeting, the District Planning Committee has not met.

The Council noted that, since the last meeting, the Overview and Scrutiny Management Committee had met on 21^st November 2013 and 10^th December 2013.

The Council noted that, since the last meeting, the Standards Committee had met on 14^th October 2013 and a special meeting took place on the 11 December 2013.

(Councillors Royce Longton and David Rendel declared a personal interest in Agenda item 14 by virtue of the fact that they were members of CAMRA. As their interest was personal and not a disclosable pecuniary interest they were permitted to take part in the debate and vote on the matter).

The Council considered a report (Agenda Item 14) setting out a response to a motion raised at the September 2013 Council meeting by Councillor Royce Longton pertaining to the action the Council could take in relation to the potential closure of public houses.

MOTION: Proposed by Councillor Hilary Cole and seconded by Councillor Quentin Webb:

That the Council:

“agrees the response to the Motion”.

Councillor Cole noted this report had been drafted following the submission of a Motion to the September 2013 Council meeting by Councillor Royce Longton. Councillor Cole reported that although the local closure rate of public houses was below the national average West Berkshire was not being complacent. Councillor Cole acknowledged that a well run public house was a real asset to a local community.  She was pleased to note that two public houses had already been listed as Assets of Community Value in the district. There were only 150 such listings across the country. One of these public houses had been saved from development and had recently been opened as a community pub.

Councillor Cole commented that she was not able to support the sixth recommendation in the original motion which asked the council to ‘lobby MPs and other political representatives to support CAMRA’s Fair Deal for Your Local campaign’. She was also not able to support the seventh proposal pertaining to the ‘price differential for beer between pubs and supermarkets’. Although she felt that it would not be appropriate for the Council to support these campaigns individual Members were of course free to do so. She therefore proposed acceptance of the first five recommendations and noted that the Council was already undertaking some action on these proposals. The recommendation before Members that evening was therefore to accept the first five items in the original Motion but to discount the last two.

AMENDMENT: Proposed by Councillor Royce Longton and seconded by Councillor Alan Macro:

“That the Council:

1.         Continue to support local communities in applying to list pubs as    Assets of Community value (p17, 3.4, 3.5);

2.         Encourage the West Berkshire Heritage Forum to include pubs of   historic or architectural interest, that currently lack a statutory      designation, in the Council’s Local Heritage Listing (p17, 3.6);

3.         Continue to promote and champion award winning local pubs and             encourage Parish Councils to draw attention to pubs of importance to     the local community in their Parish Plans (p19, 8(3), p18, 3.15);

4.         Ask officers to write to the Government seeking to close the loopholes        that currently, for example, allow the demolition of pubs, or their change of use to other commercial activities, without planning        permission (p19, 3(4), p18, 3.14)

5.         Use the CAMRA Public House Viability  ...  view the full minutes text for item 60.

To meet legislation that requires that for each financial year the Council must consider whether to revise its Council Tax Support Scheme or to replace it with another Scheme. A decision must be made by 31^st January each year.

(Councillor James Podger declared a personal and a disclosable pecuniary interest in Agenda item 15 by virtue of the fact that his daughter was a Hungerford Town Councillor and he had not applied for a dispensation to allow him to take part in the debate on this item. As his interest was personal and a disclosable pecuniary interest he left the meeting and took no part in the debate or voting on the matter).

(Councillor James Podger left the meeting at 7.47pm and returned at 8.25pm)

The Council considered a report (Agenda Item 15) which asked Members to consider whether to revise its existing Council Tax Support Scheme or to replace it with another scheme under the requirements of the relevant legislation. A decision was required by the 31^st January each year.

MOTION: Proposed by Councillor Alan Law and seconded by Councillor Laszlo Zverko:

That the Council:

“for the purposes of a Council Tax Support Scheme for 2014/15:

1.      The CTS Scheme for 2014/15 should replicate that in place for 2013/14 with the single exception that claimants in the unprotected group will be required to pay a minimum of 10% of their Council Tax liability rather than 8.5% as in 2013/14;

2.      An amount of £6.23m be drawn from Revenue Support Grant to contribute towards funding of the Scheme together with £1.23m income generated by earlier changes to Council Tax discounts;

3.      That the proposals for addressing variations between estimated and actual costs through the Collection Fund be approved;

4.      No transfer of funding will be made to parish and town councils;

5.      That the associated risks be noted.”

Councillor Law, in introducing the item requested that the following corrections be made to typographical errors in the report: the figure in Recommendation 2 should read £1.23m and not £1.27m as stated on the agenda and that this figure was also erroneously referred to in the financial implications, in paragraph 4.1(2) in the Executive Summary and paragraph 8(2) of main body of report.

He also noted that the scheme was called the Council Tax Support Scheme and any reference to Council Tax Reduction Scheme should read Council Tax Support Scheme throughout the report.

The Chairman, with the permission of those Members present, accepted the corrections.

Councillor Law explained that this was predominantly a technical report that the Council was required to produce to take on board changes made by Central Government the previous year. The Council Tax Support Scheme had replaced the Council Tax Benefit and as a consequence the Council had received 14% less funding. The Council had also previously received a specific grant to fund the scheme but this year the funding ((£6.23m) would be included in the Revenue Support Grant. The Council was therefore recommending that all claimants in the unprotected group would pay a minimum of 10% Council Tax, which was an increase when compared to the 8.5% charged the previous year.

In respect of recommendation 4 all Town and Parish Councils had been  ...  view the full minutes text for item 61.

To implement the contractual requirement for an annual price review for 2014 for Parkwood Community Leisure to come into effect from 1^st January 2014.

(Councillor Gwen Mason declared a personal interest in Agenda item 16 by virtue of the fact that she was a member of the Northcroft Leisure Centre Customer Focus Group. As her interest was personal and not a disclosable pecuniary interest she was permitted to take part in the debate and vote on the matter).

(Councillor Keith Woodhams declared a personal interest in Agenda item 16 by virtue of the fact that he was a member of the Kennet Leisure Centre Joint Action Committee. As his interest was personal and not a disclosable pecuniary interest he was permitted to take part in the debate and vote on the matter).

(Councillor Roger Croft declared a personal interest in Agenda item 16 by virtue of the fact that he was a member of the Kennet Leisure Centre Joint Action Committee and also the President of the Newbury and District Swimming Club. As his interest was personal and not a disclosable pecuniary interest he/ was permitted to take part in the debate and vote on the matter).

(Councillors Royce Longton and Carole Jackson-Doerge declared a personal interest in Agenda item 16 by virtue of the fact that they were members of the Willink Joint Action Committee. As their interest was personal and not a disclosable pecuniary interest they were permitted to take part in the debate and vote on the matter).

(Councillor Tony Vickers declared a personal interest in Agenda item 16 by virtue of the fact that he was on the Committee of the Norrthcroft Leisure Centre. As his interest was personal and not a disclosable pecuniary interest he was/were permitted to take part in the debate and vote on the matter).

(Councillors Gordon Lundie and Graham Jones declared a personal interest in Agenda item 16 by virtue of the fact that they were members of the Lambourn Lesiure Centre JMC. As their interest was personal and not a disclosable pecuniary interest they were permitted to take part in the debate and vote on the matter).

(Councillor Andrew Rowles declared a personal interest in Agenda item 16 by virtue of the fact that he was a member of the John O’ Gaunt Leisure Centre’s JAC. As his interest was personal and not a disclosable pecuniary interest he was permitted to take part in the debate and vote on the matter).

(Councillor Dominic Boeck declared a personal interest in Agenda item 16 by virtue of the fact that he was a member of the Kennet leisure Centre. As his interest was personal and not a disclosable pecuniary interest he was permitted to take part in the debate and vote on the matter).

The Council considered a report (Agenda Item 16) considering the implementation of the contractual requirement for an annual price review for 2014 for Parkwood Community Leisure to come into effect from the 01^st January 2014.

MOTION: Proposed by Councillor Hilary Cole and seconded by Councillor Virginia von Celsing:

That the Council:

“approves the proposed increase in Fees and Charges  ...  view the full minutes text for item 62.

To bring forward agreement on increases in fees and charges for the 2014/15 Adventure Dolphin activity programme in order to be able to competitively advertise and promote activities and maximise advance bookings and income.

(Councillor Tim Metcalfe declared a personal interest in Agenda item 18 by virtue of the fact that he was a member of the stakeholder group and his wife was a volunteer at the centre. As his interest was personal and not a disclosable pecuniary interest he was permitted to take part in the debate and vote on the matter).

The Council considered a report (Agenda Item 17) setting out proposed increases in fees and charges for the 2014/15 Adventure Dolphin activity programme in order to be able to competitively advertise and promote activities and maximise advance bookings and income.

MOTION: Proposed by Councillor Hilary Cole and seconded by Councillor Virginia von Celsing.

That the Council:

“agrees the increase in fees and charges for the Adventure Dolphin programme, equipment hire and resources hire as set out in Appendices B and C to the report ”.

Councillor Cole noted that the fees and charges for Adventure Dolphin were historically set in December to allow the centre to produce promotional information in January in order to maximise bookings. An increase in fees of 1.5% was being proposed this year due to take account of the significant increase that was introduced in December 2012.

Councillor Tim Metcalfe noted that although uptake of activities at the Centre had improved towards the end of the year there had been a significant decrease at the beginning of the year. He opined that the steep increase in fees introduced the previous year had been a contributory factor.

Councillor Metcalfe noted that in the third table of Appendix B (School Holiday Activities – Core Commercial Activity) it stated that the school holiday half day climbing course – young people (4 half days) would cost £110 in 2014/15 (the current costs was £100) but that this represented a 0% increase in cost. He suspected that this was a typographical error and that the cost for 2014/15 should read £100 but he sought confirmation that this was the case.

He urged caution in respect of the commercialisation of private hire so as not to contravene the lease with Pangbourne Parish Council or the Planning Permission for the site.

Councillor Metcalfe also noted that in the first table of Appendix B (Subscription Charges) a new fee was being introduced in respect of registration for the Duke of Edinburgh scheme of £20.  He was not aware that this issue had been discussed at the recent stakeholders meeting and he therefore wanted to clarify if this fee was in addition to the cost of the courses.

Councillor Hilary Cole stated that she did not have the information to hand and she would provide Councillor Metcalfe with a written response.

The Motion was put to the meeting and duly RESOLVED.

(Councillor Anthony Stansfeld declared a personal interest in Agenda item 18 by virtue of the fact that he was the Police and Crime Commissioner. As his interest was personal and not a disclosable pecuniary interest he was permitted to take part in the debate and vote on the matter).

The Council considered a report (Agenda Item 18) pertaining to the Council’s Licensing Policy Statement as required under the Licensing Act 2003 Part 2.5 (1) (a)(b).

MOTION: Proposed by Councillor Dominic Boeck and seconded by Councillor Jeff Beck:

That the Council:

“agrees to the adoption of the Licensing Policy”.

Councillor Boeck noted there was a legislative requirement to review the policy every three years. The key changes were set out in paragraph 2 of the report and were primarily associated with changes arising from the Live Music Act 2012 and the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011. The changes had been consulted on and the addition amendments arising from the consultation were also set out in the report.

Councillor Boeck noted that following the introduction of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 the policy would only be required to be reviewed every five years.

Councillor David Allen noted that in terms of the Late Night Levy as a ward member for Newbury Town Centre he was concerned about the number of reported incidents relating to night clubs. He noted that these incidents impacted significantly on the work load of police officers. He would therefore like to see the levy, which would allow authorities (both the local authority and the police) to raise a contribution from the late opening alcohol retailers, to be introduced at the soonest opportunity to mitigate the problem. Councillor Anthony Stansfeld commented that he supported the introduction of Late Night Levies.

Councillor Gordon Lundie noted that Late Night Levies were a contentious issue. He felt that this was an issue for the Licensing Committee to consider with a view to making a recommendation to full Council for determination. The Licensing Committee would need to take the views of a range of affected organisations into consideration in formulating their recommendation.

The Motion was put to the meeting and duly RESOLVED.

To agree any recommended changes to the Members Code of Conduct following the scheduled review by the Standards Committee and to consider the introduction of an associated Social Media Protocol for Members.

The Council considered a report (Agenda Item 19) which set out recommended changes to the Members’ Code of Code following the scheduled review of the Code by the Standards Committee and the report also set out a proposed Social Media Protocol for Members.

MOTION: Proposed by Councillor Jeff Beck and seconded by Councillor Gwen Mason:

That the Council:

“adopts the revised Code of Conduct for Members (as set out in Appendix H to Part 13 of the Constitution) and the Social media Protocol for Members (as set out in Appendix K to Part 13 of the Constitution) ”.

Councillor Beck noted that the Governance and Audit Committee had gone through the report in great detail at its meeting on the 25 November 2013. The document had also previously been considered by the Standards Committee.

Councillor Gwen mason commented that when the revised Code of Conduct had first been adopted (July 2012) it was agreed that it would be reviewed after it had been in place for a year. The Standards Committee had therefore undertaken the review. It has also been agreed that it was necessary to introduce a Social Media Policy to try and protect Members from complaints arising from blogging and social networking.

The Motion was put to the meeting and duly RESOLVED.

To review and amend Part 4 (Council Rules of Procedure), Part 7 (Regulatory and Other Committees Rules of Procedure) and Part 13 (Codes and Protocols) in light of legislative changes, policy changes and recent government guidance.

The Council considered a report (Agenda Item 20) concerning proposed amendments to Part 4 (Council Rules of procedure), Part 7 (Regulatory and Other Committees Rules of Procedure) and Part 13 (Codes and Protocols) in light of legislative changes, policy changes and recently issued Government guidance.

MOTION: Proposed by Councillor Jeff Beck and seconded by Councillor Quentin Webb:

That the Council:

“1.   agrees the amendments;

2.     delegates authority for the Monitoring Officer to make amendments to Part 5 (Executive Rules of Procedure) and Part 6 (Scrutiny Rules of Procedure) in respect of the use of Electronic Communication Devices and the Code of Practice Relating to Televising and Sound Recording of Meetings to align them with the changes made to Parts 4 and 7.

3.     agrees that the changes will come into effect on the 13 December 2013.”

Councillor Beck, in introducing the item, explained that there was a typographical error in the first recommendation which should read ‘To agree the proposed amendments to Parts 4, 7 and 13 of the Council’s Constitution ‘.

The Chairman, with the permission of those Members present, accepted the correction.

Councillor Beck noted that this item had also been considered in great detail at the Governance and Audit Committee meeting on the 25 November 2013.

Councillor Quentin Webb stated that he was very happy to second this report which was a very useful clean up exercise of these sections of the Constitution and which also took into consideration the changes in legislation regarding the future use of electronic devices at meetings.

The Motion was put to the meeting and duly RESOLVED.

The Chairman thanked Officers for the work undertaken in producing the documents.

To agree the Member Development Programme for 2014/2015.

The Council considered a report (Agenda Item 21) setting out the proposed Member Development Programme for 2014/15.

MOTION: Proposed by Councillor Paul Bryant and seconded by Councillor Gwen Mason:

That the Council:

“agrees the Member Development Programme for 2014/15 and that the two Leaders nominate three Members from each group to join an E learning pilot group.”

Councillor Bryant noted that the programme had been developed based on the previously agreed Member Development Strategy. This meant that the programme included three service based sessions and six monthly policy and finance updates. Members had the opportunity to put forward suggested topics where there were gaps in the programme. It had also been agreed that the recently introduced repeat day time sessions had been successful and should be continued. Councillor Bryant noted that there was an attendance rate of around 50% per session and he urged Members that were not attending the sessions regularly to do so.

Councillor Alan Macro welcomed the introduction of the pilot e-learning project which he felt would be very useful.

The Motion was put to the meeting and duly RESOLVED.

(Councillor Julian Swift-Hook left the meeting at 8.50pm)

The Council considered a report (Agenda Item 22) setting out the timetable of meetings for the 2014/15 Municipal Year.

MOTION: Proposed by Councillor Gordon Lundie and seconded by Councillor Pamela Bale:

That the Council:

“approves the timetable of meetings for the 2014/15 Municipal Year”.

Councillor Lundie asked Members to agree the proposed timetable of meetings.

The Motion was put to the meeting and duly RESOLVED.

(a)          The following Motion has been submitted in the name of Councillor David Rendel:

“It has been discovered that at least one parcel of land within West Berkshire has been deemed subject to escheat to the Crown at common law (i.e. the company which used to own the land went into liquidation, and as a result the land is now ownerless). This parcel therefore falls to be dealt with by the Crown Estate, on whose behalf the firm of Burges Salmon acts. As Burges Salmon has made clear in a letter to Councillor Rendel, "The Crown Estate does not propose to take any action which might be construed as an act of management, possession or ownership in relation to the Property, since to do so may incur upon it liabilities with which the Property is, or may become encumbered." This means that the rights of access across this land which are enjoyed by a number of local householders, as laid out in their title deeds, are gradually being spoiled by a total absence of any management of the land, including a failure to repair, for example, pothole damage. Moreover the local householders have no legal means to enforce the carrying out of such maintenance, even though any costs involved would be recoverable from those householders.

This council will therefore write to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government with a copy to each of the three local MPs, to request that he institutes as soon as possible a review of the way in which land deemed subject to escheat to the Crown is managed, and that following the review he should speedily propose legislation to ensure that in future such land is passed into the ownership of a Local Authority body who will then be made responsible for its proper maintenance."

(b)          The following Motion has been submitted in the name of Councillor Royce Longton:

“This Council

Welcomes the Coalition Government's decision to delay the deadline for implementing the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) for 12 months until April 2015;

Notes that the existing system involving "Section 106" financial contributions from developers, which CIL will replace, has proved to be fair and generates about one third more in capital receipts than is expected under CIL; also that West Berkshire's operation of Section 106 was endorsed by Government as exemplary under both Liberal Democrat and Conservative Administrations; but that Ward Members and local councils in this District are not always involved in every stage of the process;

Therefore we call:

a. On the Leaders of both Parties on this Council to continue pressing for retention of the S106 system by writing to the Minister of Planning; and

b. On the Planning Department to amend its procedures so as to ensure that local town and parish councils and Ward Members are involved from the outset in the allocation of S106 funds, from the pre-application stage through to post-construction of new developments.”

(c)          The following Motion has  ...  view the full agenda text for item 69.

The Council considered the under-mentioned Motion (Agenda item 23(a) refers) submitted in the name of Councillor David Rendel relating to the way in which land deemed subject to escheat to the Crown was managed.

MOTION: Proposed by Councillor Rendel and seconded by Councillor Richard Crumly:

“It has been discovered that at least one parcel of land within West Berkshire has been deemed subject to escheat to the Crown at common law (i.e. the company which used to own the land went into liquidation, and as a result the land is now ownerless). This parcel therefore falls to be dealt with by the Crown Estate, on whose behalf the firm of Burges Salmon acts. As Burges Salmon has made clear in a letter to Councillor Rendel, "The Crown Estate does not propose to take any action which might be construed as an act of management, possession or ownership in relation to the Property, since to do so may incur upon it liabilities with which the Property is, or may become encumbered." This means that the rights of access across this land which are enjoyed by a number of local householders, as laid out in their title deeds, are gradually being spoiled by a total absence of any management of the land, including a failure to repair, for example, pothole damage. Moreover the local householders have no legal means to enforce the carrying out of such maintenance, even though any costs involved would be recoverable from those householders.

This Council will therefore write to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government with a copy to each of the three local MPs, to request that he institutes as soon as possible a review of the way in which land deemed subject to escheat to the Crown is managed, and that following the review he should speedily propose legislation to ensure that in future such land is passed into the ownership of a Local Authority body who will then be made responsible for its proper maintenance.”

AMENDED MOTION: Proposed by Councillor Rendel and seconded by Councillor Crumly:

That the Council:

“It has been discovered that at least one parcel of land within West Berkshire has been deemed subject to escheat to the Crown at common law (i.e. the company which used to own the land went into liquidation, and as a result the land is now ownerless). This parcel therefore falls to be dealt with by the Crown Estate, on whose behalf the firm of Burges Salmon acts. As Burges Salmon has made clear in a letter to Councillor Rendel, "The Crown Estate does not propose to take any action which might be construed as an act of management, possession or ownership in relation to the Property, since to do so may incur upon it liabilities with which the Property is, or may become encumbered." This means that the rights of access across this land which are enjoyed by a number of local householders, as laid out in their title deeds, are  ...  view the full minutes text for item 69.

(There were no questions received relating to items not included on the agenda)