Agenda and minutes

The Chairman to report on functions attended since the last meeting and other matters of interest to Members.

The Chairman welcomed those present and then asked that a minutes silence be observed to remember Bernard Gardner who had sadly passed away. The Chairman explained that Mr Gardner had been a Newbury District and West Berkshire Councillor from 1995 to 2000. The Chairman stated that the Council’s thoughts were with Bernard’s wife Jean and their family during this difficult time.

The Chairman reported that since the May Council meeting, he, the Vice Chairman and former Chairman Councillor Keith Chopping had attended 40 events. He stated that it was important for the Council to be represented at the wide ranging events to show support for the organisations hosting them. Attendance also helped to highlight the good work they were doing and that they welcomed the recognition.

The Chairman will make presentations to Members who are in receipt of long service awards.

The Chairman was pleased to announce that Long Service Awards would be made to long serving elected Councillors for ten and twenty years service.

The following Member received an award for 10 years of service:

• Roger Hunneman

The following Members received an award for 20 years of service:

• Jeff Brooks
• Royce Longton

The Chairman commended the Members on their outstanding efforts.

The Chairman to sign as a correct record the Minutes of the Council meeting held on 15 May 2014.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 15 May 2014 were approved as a true and correct record and signed by the Chairman subject to the inclusion of the title Honorary Alderman next to the names of Alan Thorpe and Geoff Findlay in the apologies.

At the request of the Chairman the Monitoring Officer explained he had looked into the "legality of the amendment", referred to in Paragraphs 6 and 7 on Page 12 of the agenda. 'Petitions for Debate' which was the area discussed at the previous meeting was an area which was the responsibility of the Council as a body based upon the provisions for schemes made under the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009. Section 11(5) of the Act provided that the Council could revise a petition scheme at any time provided it was approved at a meeting of the authority and published on the Council's website.

Section 15 the Act set out the statutory requirements for 'petitions requiring debate' which included the requirement for the petition to be signed by the specified number of persons who lived, worked or studied in the local authority area. Section 15 also required that the petition did not fall within section 16 (which related to calling persons to account).

Finally Section 18 provided the Council with a discretionary power to include such provisions 'as the authority making it (the scheme) considers appropriate'. This would enable the Council to introduce the amendment put forward at the previous meeting.

The Monitoring Officer had therefore concluded that the proposed amendments to the petition scheme were legitimate in his view. The amendments would therefore be made to the Constitution following which it would be published in accordance with the 2009 Act.

To remind Members of the need to record the existence and nature of any Personal, Disclosable Pecuniary or other interests in items on the agenda, in accordance with the Members’ Code of Conduct.

Councillors Roger Hunneman, Alan Macro, Graham Jones, Gordon Lundie, Ieuan Tuck and Pamela Bale declared an interest in Agenda Item 18, but reported that, provided the discussion did not focus on specific sites, their interests were personal and not prejudicial or disclosable pecuniary interests, and they therefore determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter. The Councillors stated however that if specific sites were considered they would need to declare a disclosable pecuniary interest and they would then leave the chamber, not take part in any further debate or vote on the matter.

Councillors may present any petition which they have received. These will normally be referred to the appropriate body without discussion.

There were no petitions presented to the meeting.

Members of the Executive to answer the following questions submitted by members of the public in accordance with the Council’s Constitution:

(a)             Question to be answered by the Leader of the Council submitted by Mr David Peacock:

“Why is there no publicly-available minute of West Berkshire Council’s decision to give away the freehold to the whole of Marsh Lane in Newbury, which includes the access to Jack of Newbury’s House (probably Newbury’s most important historic building); and why was the Newbury public not consulted about this specific proposal?”

a)                 A question standing in the name of Mr David Peacock on the subject of Marsh Lane, Newbury was answered by the Leader of the Council.

The following questions pertaining to items included on the agenda were submitted after the agenda was published.

b)                 A question standing in the name of Mr Peter Norman on the subject of the number of Members who had been able to read all the supporting information for this agenda was answered by the Portfolio Holder for Planning, Transport (Policy), Culture, Customer Services and Countryside.

c)                  A question standing in the name of Mr Peter Norman on the subject of vehicular access to the proposed Sandleford Development off the A339 was answered by the Portfolio Holder for Planning, Transport (Policy), Culture, Customer Services and Countryside.

d)                 A question standing in the name of Mr Peter Norman on the subject of education provision data for the Sandleford development was answered by the Portfolio Holder for Planning, Transport (Policy), Culture, Customer Services and Countryside.

e)                 A question standing in the name of Mr Peter Norman on the subject of  vehicular access from Warren Road onto the proposed Sandleford development was answered by the Portfolio Holder for Planning, Transport (Policy), Culture, Customer Services and Countryside.

f)                    A question standing in the name of Mr Peter Norman on the subject of the sustainability of the proposed Sandleford development was answered by the Portfolio Holder for Planning, Transport (Policy), Culture, Customer Services and Countryside.

There had been no changes to the membership of Committees since the previous Council meeting.

The Council is asked to note that since the last meeting of the Council, the Licensing Committee met on 03 June 2014.  Copies of the Minutes of this meeting can be obtained from Strategic Support or via the Council’s website.

The Council noted that, since the last meeting, the Licensing Committee had met on 03 June 2014.

The Council is asked to note that since the last meeting of the Council, the Personnel Committee met on 28 May 2014.  Copies of the Minutes of *this meeting can be obtained from Strategic Support or via the Council’s website.

The Council noted that, since the last meeting, the Personnel Committee had met on 28 May 2014.

The Council is asked to note that since the last meeting of Council, the Governance and Audit Committee has not met.

The Council noted that, since the last meeting, the Governance and Audit Committee had not met.

The Council is asked to note that since the last meeting of the Council, the District Planning Committee has not met. 

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

The Council is asked to note that since the last meeting of the Council, the Overview and Scrutiny Management Commission met on 20 May 2014, 01 July 2014 and the 21 July 2014 (Special).  Copies of the Minutes of these meetings can be obtained from Strategic Support or via the Council’s website.

The Council noted that, since the last meeting, the Overview and Scrutiny Management Committee had met on 20 May 2014, 01 July 2014 and 21 July 2014.

The Council is asked to note that since the last meeting of the Council, the Standards Committee met on 16 June 2014.  Copies of the Minutes of this meeting can be obtained from Strategic Support or via the Council’s website.

The Council noted that, since the last meeting, the Standards Committee had met on 16 June 2014.

To inform Members of the Scrutiny activity undertaken during the Municipal Year 2013/2014.

The Council considered a report (Agenda Item 15) which sought to inform Members of the Scrutiny activity undertaken during the 2013/14 Municipal Year.

MOTION: Proposed by Councillor Brian Bedwell and seconded by Councillor Jeff Brooks:

That the Council:

“notes the content of the report”.

In proposing the report, Councillor Bedwell noted that the work undertaken by the Commission over the past twelve months had been varied. He encouraged Members to raise potential discussion items by completing the necessary paperwork so that the Commission could consider their proposals.

Councillor Jeff Brooks thanked Councillor Bedwell for the work that he had done during the previous year and concurred that the Commission had considered a wide body of work. He thanked Councillor Bedwell for being a gracious Chairman who had been willing to consider the proposals placed before the Commission for inclusion on the work programme. 

Councillor Alan Macro queried paragraph 3.13 of the report which stated that the A4 Calcot widening improvement scheme would be reviewed two years after its implementation. His recollection was that the review would take place a year after implementation. It was agreed that Officers would provide clarification outside of the meeting.

The Motion was put to the meeting and duly RESOLVED.

(Post meeting note: The minutes of the OSMC meeting on the 07 January 2014 were checked and it was confirmed that the OSMC had agreed that ‘The Executive should consider a review of the traffic along the A4 takes place 24 months after completion of the project to assess the need for the central reservation as space for a dual carriageway further eastbound side.’)

To provide a response to the Motion agreed at Council on 12th December 2013 concerning S106 agreements and the Community Infrastructure Levy ("CIL").

The Council considered a report (Agenda Item 16) concerning a response to the Motion agreed at Council on the 12^th December 2013 concerning s106 agreements and the Community Infrastructure Levy (“CIL”).

MOTION: Proposed by Councillor Hilary Cole and seconded by Councillor Keith Chopping:

That the Council:

“approves the report”.

Councillor Hilary Cole in introducing the item explained that the report had been drafted in order to provide a response to the motion submitted by Councillor Royce Longton at the December 2013 Council meeting. The report detailed the work undertaken by Members and Officers to ‘press for the retention of the S106 system’. Councillor Cole reported that on the 13 May 2014 Members (Councillors Keith Chopping, Tony Vickers and Hilary Cole) and Officers met with the officials from the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) where a robust discussion took place. Officials from the DCLG had been invited to visit the Council in September 2014 to see how the s106 scheme worked for themselves. Councillor Roger Croft had also raised the issue with the Secretary of State who had agreed to re-examine this issue.

Councillor Cole stated that the report also set out Members involvement in the process (paragraph 3), the role of town and parish councils in the process (paragraph 4) and the procedures for collecting CIL (paragraph 5).

Councillor Alan Macro welcomed the efforts that had been made to retain the s106 scheme. He was however concerned about the level of involvement of both Ward Members and the town and parish councils in both the CIL and s106 processes. He explained that many of the parish councils would not have sufficient resources to monitor the trigger points nor did they necessarily have the professional expertise to do so. He was concerned that the s106 report was only issued to the town and parish councils on an annual basis and cited some examples of cases where the s106 funding had been wrongly assigned.

Councillor Gordon Lundie thanked all those involved in trying to retain the s106 scheme and especially Councillor Tony Vickers for the cross party support and subsequent involvement in the visits.

Councillor Royce Longton also expressed appreciation for the efforts that had been made to retain the scheme. He noted that where a town or parish council had adopted a Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP) the percentage of CIL funding they would receive would increase from 15% to 25%. He therefore sought assurance that the Council would endeavour to support town and parish councils in the preparation of NDPs.

Councillor Tony Vickers acknowledged the thanks from Councillor Lundie and stated that he felt that cross party involvement in the lobbying had been useful and he asked that the September DCLG visit include involvement from both parties too. While he accepted that local authorities seeking to retain s106 schemes were in the minority he asked Officers to continue to try to identify any other like minded councils.

Councillor Jeff Brooks stated that he would be happy to discuss  ...  view the full minutes text for item 36.

To consider the adoption of the North Wessex Downs AONB Management Plan for 2014-2019.

The Council considered a report (Agenda Item 17) concerning the adoption of the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) Management Plan for 2014-2019.

MOTION: Proposed by Councillor Hilary Cole and seconded by Councillor Paul Bryant:

That the Council:

“adopts the North Wessex Downs AONB Management Plan for 2014-2019 as a partnership document prepared by the North Wessex Downs AONB Council of Partners”.

Councillor Hilary Cole in introducing the item reported that the Countryside and Rights of Way Act (2000) required local authorities to produce management plans for Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) within their areas. The North Wessex Downs AONB Partnership (Council of Partners) discharged this obligation on behalf of its nine local authority partners that had a presence in the North Wessex Downs. A Management Plan had to be produced and reviewed at least every five years which would support and complement the West Berkshire Local Plan, setting out a spatial policy framework that reflected national and local issues to ensure the AONB’s natural heritage, landscape and built character were conserved, the local economy was supported and the use of the AONB for recreation was encouraged.

The revised Management Plan for the next five years (2014-2019) had been formally approved by the AONB Council of Partners and each of the constituent local authorities was being recommended to formally adopt the Management Plan prior to submission to the Secretary of State at the end of July 2014. The delivery of the Plan would be monitored by the AONB Partnership through an annual review of the delivery of the AONB Business Plan, and achievements would be reported through the AONB’s Annual Report.

Councillor Cole noted that this constituted a light touch review of the 2009 plan and the majority of changes related to changes to local, regional and national policies such as the National Planning Policy Framework to ensure that the document remained fit for purpose.

Councillor Tony Vickers, the Councils representative on the Local Access Forum (LAF), stated that the report was an improvement on previous iterations. He explained that the LAF would be meeting the Council of Partners in the near future to look at opportunities for promoting the area as a short break destination and to consider a co-ordinated marketing plan for the area.

Councillor Royce Longton agreed that this was an excellent document. He did however have concerns about the constraints on wind turbines in the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Councillor Alan Law disagreed with Councillor Longton on the need for wind turbines which he felt would blight the countryside. Councillor Anthony Stansfeld concurred with Councillor Law and stated that he did not wish to see the industrial and inefficient structures being erected in the AONB. Councillor Roger Hunneman stated that there were areas in the AONB such as Membury Services where the erection of wind turbines should be acceptable. Councillor Gordon Lundie felt that the Council’s existing policy was flexible enough to permit wind turbines where it was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 37.

To consider the preferred options version of the West Berkshire Housing Site Allocations Development Plan Document.

(Councillor Roger Hunneman declared a personal interest in Agenda item 18 by virtue of the fact that he lived adjacent to the Sandleford site. As his interest was personal and not a disclosable pecuniary interest he determined to take part in the debate and vote on the matter. Councillor Hunneman stated that if the Sandleford site became a topic of discussion he would declare a disclosable pecuniary interest, leave the chamber and not take part in the vote).

(Councillor Alan Macro declared a personal interest in Agenda item 18 by virtue of the fact that he lived close to one of the preferred site options in the document. As his interest was personal and not a disclosable pecuniary interest he determined to take part in the debate and vote on the matter. Councillor Macro stated that if this site became a topic of discussion he would declare a disclosable pecuniary interest, leave the chamber and not take part in the vote).

(Councillor Graham Jones declared a personal interest in Agenda item 18 by virtue of the fact that he owned a property in Lambourn from which he ran his business. As his interest was personal and not a disclosable pecuniary interest he determined to take part in the debate and vote on the matter. Councillor Jones stated that if this site became a topic of discussion he would declare a disclosable pecuniary interest, leave the chamber and not take part in the vote).

(Councillor Gordon Lundie declared a personal interest in Agenda item 18 by virtue of the fact that he lived close to a site that had not been included as a preferred site in the document. As his interest was personal and not a disclosable pecuniary interest he determined to take part in the debate and vote on the matter).

(Councillor Ieuan Tuck declared a personal interest in Agenda item 18 by virtue of the fact that he lived close to the Sandleford site. As his interest was personal and not a disclosable pecuniary interest he determined to take part in the debate and vote on the matter).

(Councillor Pamela Bale declared a personal interest in Agenda item 18 by virtue of the fact that that she lived opposite one of the sites in Pangbourne that had not been selected as a preferred site. As her interest was personal and not a disclosable pecuniary interest she determined to take part in the debate and vote on the matter).

(Councillor Emma Webster noted that although she had previously declared a disclosable pecuniary interest in these matters there had been a change in circumstances and she no longer had a disclosable pecuniary interest and that she would like that to be recorded in the minutes.)

The Council considered a report (Agenda Item 18) concerning the preferred options version of the West Berkshire Housing Site Allocations Development Plan Document (DPD). Prior to the discussion on this item commencing the Chairman reminded those present that Members were being asked about the principle  ...  view the full minutes text for item 38.

No motions have been submitted.

There were no Motions submitted.

Members of the Executive to answer the following questions submitted by Councillors in accordance with the Council’s Constitution:

(a)               Question to be answered by the Executive Member for Highways, Transport (Operations), Emergency Planning, Newbury Vision submitted by Councillor Keith Woodhams:

“Currently, when a single vehicle uses the left hand exit lane from the West Berkshire Community Hospital to access the A4 at Benham Hill, traffic lights on the A4 and Lower Way change to red. This leads to unnecessary traffic queues and congestion leading up to the road junction especially at peak time.  Can the Executive Member for Highways & Transport tell me what timescale she has in mind for converting the left hand exit lane to a 'Give Way' lane but retaining the pedestrian lighted crossing, to allow traffic at the junction to flow more freely?”

(b)               Question to be answered by the Executive Member for Highways, Transport (Operations), Emergency Planning, Newbury Vision submitted by Councillor Keith Woodhams:

“Can the Executive Member for Finance give me a break down of the £300k 'estimated efficiency savings' that he says the Head of Service for Highways & Transport had 'pushed the highway contractors to achieve’?”

(c)               Question to be answered by the Executive Member for Highways, Transport (Operations), Emergency Planning, Newbury Vision submitted by Councillor Keith Woodhams:

“Since the introduction of the 20 mph speed limit covering Market Street, a number of motorists are still driving well in excess of the new limit. Will the Executive Member for Highways & Transport take on board my urgent request to paint 20 mph roundels on the surface of the road on the approach to the mini roundabout outside the Council offices, to slow vehicles down so that pedestrians including the elderly and parents with young children are able to cross safely?”

(d)               Question to be answered by the Executive Member for Highways, Transport (Operations), Emergency Planning, Newbury Vision submitted by Councillor Keith Woodhams:

“When will the Executive Member for Highways & Transport investigate the potential to save tax payer's money by sharing the Highways & Transport services with another Council such as Hampshire County Council?”

(e)               Question to be answered by the Executive Member for Finance, Economic development, Health and Safety, HR, Pensions and Property submitted by Councillor David Rendel:      

            “What is your estimate of the interest lost by the Council in the current financial year as a result of the decision made by the Executive on 08/05/14 to take £522,000 from balances to pay for flood repairs? ”.

(f)                 Question to be answered by the Executive Member for Finance, Economic development, Health and Safety, HR, Pensions and Property submitted by Councillor David Rendel:      

 “What is your estimate of the interest lost by the Council for the full 2014/15 financial year as a result of the decision made by the Executive on 08/05/14 to take £522,000 from balances to pay for flood repairs?”.

(a)               A question standing in the name of Councillor Keith Woodhams on the subject of the timescales for converting the left hand exit lane from the West Berkshire Community Hospital was answered by the Portfolio Holder for Highways, Transport (Operations), Emergency Planning, Newbury Vision.

(b)               A question standing in the name of Councillor Keith Woodhams on the subject of the estimated efficiency savings that have been sought from the highways contractor was answered by the Portfolio Holder for Highways, Transport (Operations), Emergency Planning, Newbury Vision.

(c)               A question standing in the name of Councillor Keith Woodhams on the subject of his request to paint 20 mph roundels on the surface of the road on the approach to the mini roundabout outside the Council offices in Market Street to improve road safety was answered by the Portfolio Holder for Highways, Transport (Operations), Emergency Planning, Newbury Vision.

(d)               A question standing in the name of Councillor Keith Woodhams on the subject of when the potential to share Highways and Transport services with another Council would be investigated was answered by the Portfolio Holder for Highways, Transport (Operations), Emergency Planning, Newbury Vision.

(e)               A question standing in the name of Councillor David Rendel on the subject of the interest lost by the Council in the current financial year as a result of the decision made by the Executive on 8 May 2014 to take £522,000 from balances to pay for flood repairs was answered by the Portfolio Holder for Finance, Economic Development, Health and Safety, Human Resources, Pensions, Property.

(a)               A question standing in the name of Councillor David Rendel on the subject of the interest lost by the Council for the full 2014/15 financial year as a result of the decision made by the Executive on 8 May 2014 to take £522,000 from balances to pay for flood repairs was answered by the Portfolio Holder for Finance, Economic Development, Health and Safety, Human Resources, Pensions, Property.