Agenda and minutes

To appoint a Vice-Chairman for the remainder of the 2016/17 Municipal Year.

The Chairman requested nominations for the position of Vice-Chairman of Council for the remainder of the Municipal Year 2016/17. In response to this request Councillor Carol Jackson-Doerge was nominated by Councillor Jeanette Clifford and the nomination was seconded by Councillor Anthony Pick. There were no further nominations for the position of Vice-Chairman.

Councillor Jeanette Clifford stated that Councillor Jackson-Doerge, a former Vice-Chairman of Council, was experienced, good humoured, stylish, knowledgeable and hard working and she had the attributes needed to fulfil the role of Vice-Chairman.

Councillor Anthony Pick commented that Councillor Jackson-Doerge had previously undertaken the role of Vice-Chairman with great dignity and would do so again.

RESOLVED that Councillor Carol Jackson-Doerge be appointed Vice?Chairman of Council for the remainder of the Municipal Year 2016/17. 

The Vice-Chairman read and signed the Declaration of Acceptance of Office. Councillor Jackson–Doerge thanked the Council for electing her. She noted that this was a huge honour and she would support Councillor Webb to the best of her ability.

Councillor Jackson-Doerge thanked the outgoing Vice-Chairman, Councillor Jeanette Clifford, for her contribution to the Council since being elected as Vice-Chairman in May 2016.

The Chairman conveyed his sincere tanks to the previous Vice-Chairman, Councillor Jeanette Clifford, for her support during the first half of the year and also congratulated her on her appointment to the Executive.

The Chairman also thanked Jo Watt who had supported all Members, including all Chairman and Vice-Chairman, for the past 18 Years. He expressed gratitude for the contributions she had made during her time as a Member Support Officer and he wished her every success in her new role as Appeals Officer.

The Chairman reported that he had attended 57 events since the last Council meeting; Councillor Jeanette Clifford had attended ten events and Councillor Adrian Edwards had attended one event on the Chairman’s behalf. 

In particular he highlighted the Duke of Edinburgh’s Awards, judging of the Queen’s birthday card competition and the subsequent prize giving, The Bayer 10k race, being invited to the ‘Dream of Production’ event at Parsons Down School, the armed service briefing at Sandhurst, the ‘Tigris’ commemoration service and meeting relatives of the submariners who had died in 1943 tragedy, celebrating 10 years of the ASD Department at Theale Green School and attending the reaffirmation of the civic honour of the Royal School of Military Survey Freedom of the Town of Thatcham.

The Chairman to sign as a correct record the Minutes of the Council meetings held on 19 May 2016 and 31 May 2016.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 19 May 2016 and the extraordinary meeting on the 31 May 2016 were approved as a true and correct record and signed by the Chairman.

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.

Councillor Alan Macro declared an interest in Agenda Items 18 and 21, and reported that, as his interest was personal and prejudicial and a disclosable pecuniary interest, he would be leaving the meeting during the course of consideration of the matter.

Councillor Pamela Bale declared an interest in Agenda Items 18 and 21, but reported that, as her interest was personal and not prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest, she determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.

Councillor Lynne Doherty noted that she had previously declared an interest in item 17 (Short Breaks for Disabled Children) by virtue of the fact that she was employed by Homestart. She had been granted a dispensation by the Governance and Ethics Committee to speak and vote on associated matters. She was however no longer an employee of Homestart and therefore no longer needed to declare this interest.

Councillor Jeanette Clifford declared a personal interest in question 7(e) which she would be answering but it was noted that no decision on this matter was required. Councillor Clifford declared the interest by virtue of the fact that her son was employed by BT Openreach.

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

The Council has been notified that Councillor Gordon Lundie will present a petition on behalf of Ms Sue Cocker in relation to West Berkshire’s Library Service.

Councillor Gordon Lundie, on behalf of Ms Sue Cocker,  presented a petition containing 378 signatures relating to the West Berkshire Library Service.

The petition requested that the Council:

1.    Publish the full Libraries’ Needs assessment Report in the interests of transparency and decision making.

2.    Consult with stakeholder groups on proposals resulting from the Needs Assessment in order to allow co-creation of practical joint solutions.

3.    Discuss and decide on the proposals in Full Council so that all Members can participate’.

The Chairman thanked the petitioner for the petition. He explained that the petition would be referred to the appropriate Officers. He commented that in relation to points 1 and 2 the Council had committed to publishing the Needs Assessment and to consulting with the public. In relation to point 3 it was proposed that the final decision would be made at Council.

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 Executive Member for Planning and Housing submitted by Paul Inman:

“What consideration has been given to using the ‘Section 106’ contributions from the ‘Living at the Racecourse’ and many other recent new developments in Greenham towards mitigating the impact of more visitors to Greenham Common – and specifically to the project to restore the Control Tower to use as a visitor centre?”

(b)         Question to be answered by the Leader of the Council submitted by Balu Sudra:

“What did the Council spend in total marketing the Greenham Control Tower, including any spend on negotiations with the parish council and processing what turned out to be an un-necessary planning application for its change of use?”

(c)         Question to be answered by the Executive Member for Planning and Housing submitted by John Gage:

“Why did the Planning Department in 2014 fail to identify that a planning application for change of use of the Control Tower to a visitor centre not only existed from 2000 but had been substantially implemented, when normally ‘planning history’ on sites throughout the District is very comprehensive going back well before that date?”

(d)         Question to be answered by the Executive Member for Highways and Transport submitted by Elizabeth O’Keeffe:

“The redevelopment of the Sterling Industrial Estate includes its decontamination and the provision of a new link road to the main employment area of Newbury, the latter funded by a time-limited grant from Berkshire Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP). This will relieve Mill Lane and Kings Road of one-way B-road through traffic. With no sign of the development starting and only 18 months before the potential loss of the LEP funds, what is the Council doing to ensure the road gets built?”

(e)         Question to be answered by the Executive Member for Highways and Transport submitted by Mr Kim Hetherton:

“What can West Berkshire Council do to ensure minimum disruption to businesses from the effect of utilities digging up the highway with the result of adversely affecting trade in these testing times?”

A full transcription of the public and Member question and answer sessions are available from the following link: Transcription of Q&As.

(a)          Question to be answered by the Portfolio Holder for Planning and Housing submitted by Paul Inman.

A question standing in the name of Paul Inman on the subject of using s106 contributions from new developments (including the Living at the Racecourse development) to mitigate the harm of visitors to Greenham Common was answered by the Portfolio Holder for Planning and Housing. As the questioner was not present they would also be sent a written response to their question.

(b)          Question to be answered by the Leader of the Council submitted by Balu Sidra.

A question standing in the name of Balu Sidra on the subject of marketing costs for the Greenham Control Tower was answered by the Leader of the Council. As the questioner was not present they would also be sent a written response to their question.

(Councillor Gordon Lundie left the meeting at 7.35pm)

(c)          Question to be answered by the Portfolio Holder for Planning and Housing submitted by John Gage.

A question standing in the name of John Gage on the subject of a failure to identify the existence of an existing planning permission for change of use of the Control Tower to a visitor centre of was answered by the Portfolio Holder for Planning and Housing.

(d)          Question to be answered by the Portfolio Holder for Highways and Transport  submitted by Elizabeth O’ Keefe.

A question standing in the name of Elizabeth O’ Keefe on the subject of measures being taken by the Council to ensure that the new link road on the Sterling Industrial Estate was built in accordance with the LEP funding requirements answered by the Portfolio Holder for Highways and Transport.

(e)          Question to be answered by the Portfolio Holder for Highways and Transport submitted by Kim Hetherton.

A question standing in the name of Kiim Hetherton on the subject of minimising disruption to businesses as a result of utility companies digging up the highway was answered by the Portfolio Holder for Highways and Transport. As the questioner was not present they would also be sent a written response to their question.

(Councillor Jeremy Bartlett arrived at 7.40pm)

The Council is asked to approve the appointments set out below:

It is proposed that Councillor Keith Chopping be appointed to the Governance and Ethics Committee to replace Councillor Rick Jones who had to resign his seat on the Committee following his appointment to the Executive.

It is proposed that Councillor Marigold Jaques be appointed to the Communities Select Committee to replace Councillor Rick Jones who had to resign his seat on the Committee following his appointment to the Executive.

It is proposed that Councillor Marigold Jaques be appointed to the Overview and Scrutiny Management Commission to replace Councillor Rick Jones who had to resign his seat on the Commission following his appointment to the Executive.

The Leader of the Council took this opportunity to welcome Councillors Jeanette Clifford and Rick Jones to the Executive. Following their appointments it had been necessary to make some adjustments to other Committees.

The Leader of the Council therefore proposed that the Council approve the following appointments:

Councillor Keith Chopping to replace Councillor Rick Jones on the Governance and Ethics Committee.

Councillor Marigold Jaques to replace Councillor Rick Jones on the Communities Select Committee.

Councillor Marigold Jaques  to replace Councillor Rick Jones as substitute on the Overview and Scrutiny Management Commission.

Councillor Jeanette Clifford  to replace Councillor Garth Simpson on the Planning Advisory Group

The proposal was seconded by Councillor Emma Webster.

Council agreed to the changes to the membership of Committees.

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

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

The Council is asked to note that since the last meeting of the Council, the Personnel Committee met on 30 June 2016.  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 30 June 2016.

The Council is asked to note that since the last meeting of Council, the Governance and Ethics Committee met on 5 September 2016.  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 Governance and Ethics Committee had met on 05 September 2016.

The Council is asked to note that since the last meeting of the Council, the District Planning Committee met on 27 July 2016 and 30 August 2016.  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 District Planning Committee had met on 27 July 2016 and 30 August 2016.

The Council is asked to note that since the last meeting of the Council, the Overview and Scrutiny Management Commission met on 7 June 2016.  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 Overview and Scrutiny Management Committee had met on 07 June 2016.

To review and if appropriate amend Part 11 (Contract Rules of Procedure) following a request from the Procurement Board to do so.

The Council considered a report (Agenda Item 14) concerning proposed amendments to the Council’s Contract Rules of Procedure (Part 11 of the Constitution).

MOTION: Proposed by Councillor James Fredrickson and seconded by Councillor Jeanette Clifford.

That the Council:

“the proposed amendments to Part 11 (Contract Rules of Procedure) be agreed and that the changes come into effect on the 16^th September 2016”.

AMENDMENT: Proposed by Councillor James Fredrickson and seconded by Councillor Jeanette Clifford:

“That the recommendations set out in Paragraphs 2.1 and 2.2 set out in the report be approved and adopted subject to the following amendments:

11.4    Authority

That the first column of paragraph 11.4.4 be amended to read:

Total Contract Value

per annum*

Less than £100,000

£100,000 or more and less than £500,000

£500,000 or more and less than £2.5 million

£2.5 million or more

11.5    Tendering

That the first column of paragraph 11.5.2 be amended to read:

     Total Value £

A             Less than 10,000

B             10,000 or more and less than 100,000

C             100,000 or more and less than relevant EU threshold²

D            Relevant EU threshold or more²

Councillor Fredrickson commented that the amendments which had been previously circulated to members and also tabled at the meeting were minor amendments to clarify the action required if contracts amounted to the exact value of some of the thresholds.

The amendment was put to the vote and declared CARRIED.

Councillor Fredrickson noted that the report sought to adjust the thresholds required for the Executive to sign off contracts. The key change was that contracts valued between £500k and £2.5m would be signed off by Heads of Service, in consultation with the relevant Portfolio Holder, under delegated authority. As these decisions were key decisions they would still have to appear on the Forward Plan for 28 days and would be subject to the Council’s usual call-in procedures. This changes was designed to streamline decision making.

Councillor Lee Dillon commented that she was happy to support the changes as Members and the public would still be aware of forthcoming decisions as they would appear on the Forward Plan and the decisions could still be called-in. He requested that the decisions be monitored to ensure that Heads of Service did not aggregate or disaggregate contracts to circumvent the agreed processes.

Councillor Alan Macro commented that, although not a contract, the Council had recently spent significant sums of money (around £250k) on legal fees associated with a Judicial Review. He stated that although he did not necessarily disagree with the decision to review he felt that the process was not transparent and he asked if this was something that the Governance and Ethics Committee could look into.

Councillor Clifford noted that the changes had involved a lot of work and she thanked all Members and Officers for their input. She noted that the Council had a duty to obtain best value and these changes represented a more mobile and streamlined process but retained the checks and balances described by  ...  view the full minutes text for item 35.

To present the new Councillors Code of Conduct and seek the Council’s approval.

The Council considered a report (Agenda Item 15) concerning revisions to the Councillor’s Code of Conduct.

MOTION: Proposed by Councillor James Fredrickson and seconded by Councillor Graham Bridgman:

That the Council:

(1)       Approves and adopts the new Councillors Code of Conduct.

(2)       Delegates authority to the Monitoring Officer to make any required changes to the Council’s Constitution in light of the new Councillors Code of Conduct.

(3)       Delegates authority to the Monitoring Officer to update the process for investigating alleged breaches of the Code of Conduct.

(4)       Delegates authority to the Monitoring Officer to publicise the revisions and replacement of the Councillors Code of Conduct in accordance with Section 28 (12) of the Localism Act 2011.”

AMENDMENT: Proposed by Councillor James Fredrickson  and seconded by Councillor Graham Bridgman:

That the Council:

“That the recommendation set out in paragraphs 2.1 (1), (2), (3) and (4) be approved and adopted subject to the following amendments:

Page 66 (of agenda pack) - “How does a Councillor register gifts and hospitality that they receive?” should be amended to read “How does a Councillor register gifts and hospitality they are offered or receive?”

Page 75 at 11.1 – “Other Interest” should be amended to read “Other Registerable Interest”.

Page 78 (Flowchart) – “Has the Monitoring Officer granted you a Dispensation?” (in two places) should be amended to read “Has the Monitoring Officer or Governance & Ethics Committee granted you a Dispensation?”.

Councillor Fredrickson noted that this was a minor amendment to ensure that gifts, both received and offered, needed to be reported by Members and clarified the role of the Governance and Ethics Committee in respect of granting dispensations.

The amendment was put to the vote and declared CARRIED.

Councillor Fredrickson noted that the changes were largely cosmetic but were designed to ensure that Members met their legal duties under the Bribery Act 2010. Officers had been asked to review the guidance to ensure that it was clear and precise so that Members were able to understand their obligations. He thanked Councillor Quentin Webb for the work he had done on getting the changes made.

Councillor Graham Bridgman noted that a Task Group had been set up to review the documents. He paid tribute to the Officers especially Jo Reeves who had spent a lot of time on getting the work done. The document was designed to be more accessible on a tablet, and sought to clarify the Gifts and Hospitality Protocol. He reminded members of the need to declare gifts that were both received and offered.

Councillor Quentin Webb commented that it would be useful for Parish Councils to have sight of the revised document. Councillor Bridgman commented that it was hoped that a template could be produced for the parishes to use.

The Substantive Motion, as amended, was put to the meeting and duly RESOLVED.

To present the response of the Webcasting Task and Finish Group to Councillor Alan Macro’s Motion that ‘The Council investigates the cost and practicality of webcasting all Council, Executive and Committee meetings’ which was put to the Council on 2 July 2015.

The Council considered a report (Agenda Item 16) which provided a response from the Webcasting Task and Finish Group to Councillor Alan Macro’s motion that the Council investigates the cost and practicality of webcasting all Council, Executive and Committee meetings which was put to the Council on the 02 July 2015.

MOTION: Proposed by Councillor James Fredrickson and seconded by Councillor *:

That the Council:

“(1)      The Council to webcast meetings of particular public interest.

(2)       A project board of officers from Property, IT and Strategic Support be set up to make arrangements to complete the repairs and acquire the equipment needed to webcast meetings in the Council Chamber and at other locations.

(3)       The Governance and Ethics Committee to develop a Webcasting Policy, to include a procedure for identifying meetings to be webcast and guidance for Members.”

Councillor Fredrickson reported that following the submission of a Motion to Council by Councillor Alan Macro a cross party Task Group had been set up to look into webcasting Council meetings. He noted that the anticipated expenditure of £80k would be met from the Capital Programme and would not incur a revenue cost burden. He also highlighted that around £35k would be spent on equipment and that the remaining £45k was associated with maintenance costs that would have to be incurred in any event toe ensure that the Council was meeting all its statutory requirements.

Councillor Fredrickson reported that the recent level of interest in the Full Council meeting where the Development Plan Document had been discussed had highlighted the need for the Council to consider webcasting future meetings. A process would be put in place whereby the agreement of the Group Leaders and relevant Officers would be required as to which meetings should be broadcast. He thanked Councillor Macro for agreeing to second the motion.

Councillor Macro congratulated the Task group on the work they had done to progress this matter. He welcomed the additional transparency that webcasting would provide.

The Motion was put to the meeting and duly RESOLVED.

The High Court on the 22 July 2016 ordered that the Council’s decisions relating to the reduction in funding for short breaks should be quashed. In light of the judgement the Council is asked to consider its decisions of 1 March 2016 and 31 May 2016 relating to the short breaks budgetary proposal, looking at the issues completely afresh.

Prior to the discussion on this item commencing the Chairman clarified why Members were being asked to consider this matter. On 1 March 2016 and 31 May 2016, the Council made decisions relating to the budget for Short Breaks for disabled children.

Those decisions had now both been quashed by High Court judgement. As detailed in the executive summary in regards to decision 1, Justice Lang concluded that Members did not ask ‘the right questions’ regarding the Council’s obligations under the Equalities Act 2010. In regards to decision 2, Justice Lang assessed that this decision addressed the flaws of decision 1. However, this decision was also quashed, as Justice Lang concluded that Members were not informed as to how to rescind the previous decision should they have been minded to, through suspending standing orders.

The Chairman commented that as a Council, Members and Officers were obviously disappointed with this result. This was particularly so for decision 2, given that Councillors received training regarding the rules of the constitution, including how to suspend standing orders.

The Chairman noted that the Council respected the Court’s judgement and members were being asked to consider the matter completely afresh at this meeting. He invited Councillors to consider the issue with fresh eyes, casting discussions at the previous 2 meetings of Council concerning this matter aside.”

(Councillor(s) * declared a personal and a disclosable pecuniary interest in Agenda item * by virtue of the fact that *. As his/her/their interest was personal and a disclosable pecuniary interest  he/she/they left the meeting and took no part in the debate or voting on the matter).

(Councillor(s) * declared a personal interest in Agenda item * by virtue of the fact that *. As his/her/their interest was personal and not a disclosable pecuniary interest he/she/they was/were permitted to take part in the debate and vote on the matter).

(Councillor Doherty clarified that although she had previously declared an interest in this item as she had now left the employment of a provider in July 2016 this conflict no longer existed.)

The Council considered a report (Agenda Item 17) following the High Court  decision on the 22nd July 2016 that ordered that the Council’s previous decisions, made on the 01^st March 2016 and the 31^st May 2016, relating to the reduction in funding for short breaks be quashed.

MOTION: Proposed by Councillor Lynne Doherty  and seconded by Councillor James Fredrickson:

That the Council:

1.    “having considered this Report and its appendices fully agrees that the service redesign, reductions and budgetary measures proposed relating to short breaks funding are appropriate and proportionate following assessment of the statutory requirements.

2.    Instructs that Officers robustly monitor the impact of the budgetary reduction and continue to work in close partnership with local providers of short breaks provision in West Berkshire.”

Councillor Doherty, in introducing this item reminded Members that they were

required to make a new decision on the redesign of short breaks for disabled children, for reasons already explained by  ...  view the full minutes text for item 38.

To obtain authority from full Council to purchase by agreement or using compulsory purchase powers all or parts of land identified within the plan attached to the report (Appendix C) to enable the relocation of Theale Church of England Primary School from Church Street, Theale to land adjoining Englefield road and North Street, Theale.

(Councillor Alan Macro declared a personal and a disclosable pecuniary interest in Agenda item 18 by virtue of the fact that was a Member of Theale Parish Council, he was a Governor at Theale Church of England Primary School and was a member of the project team.. As his interest was personal and a disclosable pecuniary interest  he determined to leave the meeting and took no part in the debate or voting on the matter).

(Councillor Pamela Bale declared a personal interest in Agenda item 18 by virtue of the fact that she was a governor at Theale Green School (One of the discounted options) . 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 Alan Macro left the meeting at 8.30pm and returned at 8.40pm)

The Council considered a report (Agenda Item 18) which sought approval to purchase land using compulsory purchase powers to replace Theale Church of England Primary School. The Council would be unable to provide sufficient primary school places in Theale by September 2017 if agreement to purchase the land by negotiation did not occur immediately.

MOTION: Proposed by Councillor Lynne Doherty and seconded by Councillor Dominic Boeck:

That the Council:

1.    “Having given consideration to all the provisions of this report including the impact on Human Rights and Equalities, resolves to delegate to the Head of Legal Services authority to make a Compulsory Purchase Order(s) and other such powers as detailed in Section 1.1 of this report.

2.    Whilst negotiations are continuing to take place, successful negotiated purchase agreements cannot be reached despite numerous attempts to engage over the last 18 months.

3.    Without the Council's involvement to acquire the necessary interests in land, the Council will be unable to unlock the site for the relocation of Theale Church of England Primary School.  The school has already exceeded capacity and there is an urgent need to provide more primary school places in Theale to meet current demand and projected pupil modelling numbers.  The proposal will assist with meeting the Council's duty to provide sufficient primary school places. ”.

Councillor Doherty noted that the National Audit had warned that there was a national shortage of places at both primary and secondary level. West Berkshire Council had a duty to ensure that there were sufficient school places available to every West Berkshire resident child that requested one between the ages of five and 11 and thereafter to 17.

The Council had therefore been working with Theale Church of England Primary School to replace the existing school situated in Church Street in Theale as part of the Education Capital Programme. The existing school was already at over capacity and there was an urgent need to deliver suitable accommodation for a new school.

The land identified for the relocation was currently owned by Englefield Estate but was leased by Theale Parish Council. Negotiations had been progressing over the past  ...  view the full minutes text for item 39.

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

(a)          Question to be answered by the Executive Member for Highways and Transport submitted by Councillor Billy Drummond:

“We are concerned about the safety of the A34. What actions are the Council taking to address safety issues after recent accidents”?

(a)          A question standing in the name of Councillor Billy Drummond on the subject of safety concerns on the A34 was answered by the Portfolio Holder for Highways and Transport. As the questioner was not present they would also be sent a written response to their question.

A full transcription of the public and Member question and answer sessions are available from the following link: Transcription of Q&As.

RECOMMENDATION: That members of the press and public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the following items as it is likely that there would be disclosure of exempt information of the description contained in the paragraphs of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 specified in brackets in the heading of each item.

RESOLVED that members of the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the under-mentioned item of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as contained in Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972, as amended by the Local Government (Access to Information)(Variation) Order 2006. Rule 8.10.4 of the Constitution also refers.

(Paragraph 1 – information relating to an individual)

(Paragraph 3 – information relating to financial/business affairs of particular person)

To consider the exempt Exchange Land Plan.

(Councillor Alan Macro declared a personal and a disclosable pecuniary interest in Agenda item 21 by virtue of the fact that was a Member of Theale Parish Council, he was a Governor at Theale Church of England Primary School and was a member of the project team. As his interest was personal and a disclosable pecuniary interest  he determined to leave the meeting and took no part in the debate or voting on the matter).

(Councillor Pamela Bale declared a personal interest in Agenda item 21 by virtue of the fact that she was a governor at Theale Green School (One of the discounted options) . 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 Alan Macro left the meeting at 8.42pm and returned at 8.44pm)

The Committee considered an exempt report (Agenda Item 21) concerning the exempt Exchange Land Plan.

MOTION: Proposed by Councillor Lynne Doherty and seconded by Councillor James Fredrickson:

That the Council agrees the exempt element of the report.

The Motion was put to the meeting and duly RESOLVED.