Agenda, decisions and minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 30 June 2016.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 30 June 2016 were approved as a true and correct record and signed by the Deputy Leader.

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.

There were no declarations of interest received.

There were no public questions submitted.

There were no petitions presented to the Executive.

(CSP: All)

Purpose:

(1)          To report year end outturns against the Key Accountable Measures contained in the 2015/16 Council Performance Framework and any additional performance intelligence.

(2)          To provide assurance to Members that the objectives laid out in the Council Strategy and other areas of significance / importance across the Council are being delivered.

(3)          To present, by exception, those measures/milestones not achieved and to cite any remedial action taken and its impact to allow the scrutiny and approval of the corrective or remedial action put in place.

Resolved that:

·         progress against the Council Strategy priorities for improvement would be noted and achievements celebrated.

·         those areas reporting as ‘red’ were reviewed to ensure that appropriate action was in place.

This decision is not subject to call in as:

·      Report is to note only

therefore it will be implemented immediately.

The Executive considered a report (Agenda Item 6) which outlined year end outturns against the Key Accountable Measures (KAMs) contained in the 2015/16 Council Performance Framework and any additional performance intelligence; provided assurance to Members that the objectives laid out in the Council Strategy and other areas of significance/importance across the Council were being delivered; and which presented, by exception, those measures/milestones behind schedule or not achieved and the remedial action taken/its impact.

Councillor Roger Croft explained that this report marked the end of the first year of the four year Council Strategy and reported that progress was being made in all priority areas. This was despite the financial pressures faced by the Council and increases in demand in some areas of activity. Councillor Croft added that a near to balanced budget had been achieved for 2015/16.

A key area of activity over the past year had been within Children and Family Services with significant effort being made to move from the ‘inadequate’ Ofsted judgement to ‘Good’. It was also the case that the outcome of the recently undertaken LGA Peer Review would soon be published and it was hoped that this would also show that the service was moving towards ‘Good’.

Councillor Croft also highlighted that an action plan would be developed to enable the Council to focus on enabling the delivery of 1000 affordable homes by 2020.

81% of the reported KAMs had been achieved for 2015/16 and were therefore ‘Green’, this compared to 78% achieved for 2014/15.

Five KAMS had been reported as ‘Red’ and Councillor Croft explained that plans were in place at service area level to address these.

Councillor Alan Law made reference to the Measures of Volume section of the report which highlighted that Business Rate growth was at an all time high and that the number of Jobseekers Allowance claimants in West Berkshire amounted to the second lowest unemployment rate in southern England.

Continuing with Measures of Volume, Councillor Hilary Cole pointed out the significant rise in the number of transactions made through the Council’s website. This demonstrated that a high number of transactions could be easily accessed and achieved online by residents. Councillor James Fredrickson added to this point by advising that the Council’s website received an overhaul around two months ago and this helped to enable the achievement of tasks online.

Councillor Marcus Franks advised that the number of crimes reported to Thames Valley Police (for West Berkshire) continued to reduce and the figure for Quarter Four 2015/16 was at the lowest point of the last three years.

Councillor Alan Macro noted that 158 affordable housing units had been completed during 2015/16, this was down from a figure of over 200 in 2014/15 and Councillor Macro queried whether the target of delivering 1000 affordable homes by 2020 was in jeopardy. This was particularly concerning when considering that the viability of affordable housing was reported as an issue for housing developers. In response, Councillor Croft reiterated his earlier point that an action  ...  view the full minutes text for item 23.

(CSP: BEC, SLE, HQL and SLE2)

Purpose:  To outline the progress made by the Superfast Berkshire project and to make a recommendation for a new phase of the project (Intervention Phase 3).  This report is based upon recommendations previously endorsed by the Superfast Berkshire Project Board, Berkshire Chief Executives Group, Berkshire Leaders, Thames Valley Berkshire LEP Forum and the LEP Executive.

Resolved that:

·         the circa £2.5m of underspend and gainshare funding from intervention phase 1 of the Superfast Berkshire project and the unspent phase 2 funds from Reading and Wokingham (including LEP contribution) be invested into a procurement for a Superfast Berkshire Phase 3. The objective of this new phase is to get all Berkshire unitary districts to as close to 100% superfast broadband coverage as possible by the end of 2018.  At the very least we should assist all districts in getting to 97% superfast broadband coverage.

·         West Berkshire Council continues to act as the lead authority, for this successful project, both for this new procurement and for overseeing delivery of the existing and new phases of the project.

·         the governance arrangements, which were set up for phase 1 of the project, continue to be used. (Subject to the proposed updates to the Collaboration Agreement being completed).

·         project resource costs be divided equally across all 7 project participants.

This decision is eligible to be ‘called-in’.  However, if the decision has not been ‘called-in’ by 5.00pm on 4 August 2016, then it will be implemented.

The Executive considered a report (Agenda Item 7) which outlined the progress made by the Superfast Berkshire project and which made a recommendation for a new phase of the project (Intervention Phase 3).

Councillor Roger Croft explained that this pan-Berkshire project, which commenced in 2011, was designed to fill the gaps in superfast broadband coverage across Berkshire. At the start of the project superfast coverage in West Berkshire was 65%. However, the Superfast Berkshire Project, under West Berkshire Council’s stewardship, would achieve 95.6% of superfast broadband coverage across Berkshire by 2017 and close to 100% in West Berkshire (Phase 2).

Investment funds available for Phase 3 improvements amounted to £2.5m. This comprised Gainshare funding of £816k, project underspend of £1m and unused basic broadband funding of £623k. It was proposed that West Berkshire Council would continue to oversee Phase 3 of the project and this expenditure.

Councillor Croft concluded his introduction by remarking that this project was a good example of the Berkshire unitary authorities and the Thames Valley Berkshire Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) working together to the benefit of residents across Berkshire.

Councillor Alan Macro noted that the LEP had offered to provide this project with an interest free loan of up to £1.8m which would allow the project to be funded in advance of British Telecom (BT) repaying the Gainshare and project underspend. He queried whether this was necessary if the tender for Phase 3 was awarded to BT. Councillor Croft responded that the view had been taken by the Superfast Berkshire Project Board that it would be preferable to engage in a competitive tender process with a view to achieving the best outcome for Berkshire residents.

Councillor Macro commended the work of the Council’s Officers on this project and suggested that the Council’s expertise/service could be sold to other local authorities. Councillor Croft added his praise for the efforts of Officers and explained that while the delivery of Phase 2 and the proposed Phase 3 were the first priority, the potential to sell the Council’s capability in this area/its service could then be considered. This was a valuable skill set held by West Berkshire Council.

RESOLVED that:

(1) The circa £2.5m of underspend and gainshare funding from intervention phase 1 of the Superfast Berkshire project and the unspent phase 2 funds from Reading and Wokingham (including LEP contribution) be invested into a procurement for a Superfast Berkshire Phase 3.

The objective of this new phase is to get all Berkshire unitary districts to as close to 100% superfast broadband coverage as possible by the end of 2018. At the very least we should assist all districts in getting to 97% superfast broadband coverage.

(2) West Berkshire Council continues to act as the lead authority for this successful project, both for this new procurement and for overseeing delivery of the existing and new phases of the project.

(3) The governance arrangements, which were set up for phase 1 of the project, continue to be used. (Subject to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 24.

(CSP: P&S)

Purpose:  To seek approval from the Executive to proceed with a consultation on the Draft Temporary Accommodation Policy.

Resolved that the publication of the draft Temporary Accommodation Policy be approved for consultation.

This decision is eligible to be ‘called-in’.  However, if the decision has not been ‘called-in’ by 5.00pm on 4 August 2016, then it will be implemented.

The Executive considered a report (Agenda Item 8) which sought approval to proceed with a consultation on the draft Temporary Accommodation Policy.

Councillor Hilary Cole explained that this draft Policy had been developed to order to meet the requirements set out by the Court of Appeal. The Policy sought to provide a strategy for procuring new temporary accommodation to meet demand, as part of meeting the Council’s statutory housing duties.

Subject to approval, the draft Temporary Accommodation Policy would be published for a six week period of consultation. A consultation process was necessary as the introduced Policy would have a likely impact on service users. All residents currently in temporary accommodation would be contacted asking them for their views, as would all statutory and voluntary stakeholders who had an interest in, or worked with households affected by, homelessness.

Councillor Alan Macro referred to the prioritisation given to housing homeless households outlined in the report. He queried whether this prioritisation would include families with very young children or with more than two children as these families were less suitable for bed and breakfast accommodation. Councillor Roger Croft suggested that this was a comment to make in response to the consultation (subject to its approval).

RESOLVED that the publication of the draft Temporary Accommodation Policy be approved for consultation.

Reason for the decision: to proceed with a consultation on the draft Temporary Accommodation Policy.

Other options considered: The Council could decide not to implement a Temporary Accommodation Policy. This could give rise to legal challenge if households are not allocated suitable accommodation under statutory homelessness duties.

(CSP: P&S)

Purpose:  To seek approval from the Executive to proceed with a consultation on the Draft Decant Policy.

Resolved that the publication of the draft Decant Policy be approved for consultation.

This decision is eligible to be ‘called-in’.  However, if the decision has not been ‘called-in’ by 5.00pm on 4 August 2016, then it will be implemented.

The Executive considered a report (Agenda Item 9) which sought approval to proceed with a consultation on the draft Decant Policy.

Councillor Hilary Cole explained that the Council had a small number of secure tenants who were afforded security of tenure. This Policy had been drafted to set out how the Council would manage decant of these tenants or licensees on a temporary basis in the event that major works or refurbishment works were required to the properties.

Subject to approval, the draft Decant Policy would be published for a six week period of consultation.

Councillor Alan Macro queried whether a six week consultation was sufficient when considering that this would take place over the school summer holidays. Councillor Cole explained that very few households would be effected by this Policy. All residents currently in accommodation to which the Decant Policy would apply would be contacted asking for their views, this included face to face meetings, and there was therefore felt to be no need to extend the consultation period.

RESOLVED that the publication of the draft Decant Policy be approved for consultation.

Reason for the decision: to proceed with a consultation on the draft Decant Policy.

Other options considered: None.

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

“How many vehicles have been turned away from the Smallmead waste site in Reading since the re3 consortium stopped West Berkshire residents from using it?”

A question standing in the name of Councillor Alan Macro on the subject of the number of vehicles which had been turned away from the Smallmead waste site in Reading since the re3 consortium stopped West Berkshire residents from using it was answered by the Portfolio Holder for Communities and Public Protection.

“How many people have attended the Library Needs Assessment drop-in sessions?”

A question standing in the name of Councillor Alan Macro on the subject of the number of people who had attended the Library Needs Assessment drop-in sessions was answered by the Portfolio Holder for Adults, Care and Culture.

“How many primary and secondary schools are forecasting deficit budgets?”

A question standing in the name of Councillor Lee Dillon on the subject of the number of primary and secondary schools who were forecasting deficit budgets was answered by the Leader of the Council in the absence of the Portfolio Holder for Education and Corporate Infrastructure.

“Following the recent inspection of Thatcham Park Church of England Primary School, can the Portfolio Holder outline what support and resources this Council will provide to improve the overall effectiveness rating?”

A question standing in the name of Councillor Lee Dillon on the subject of the support and resources the Council would provide to improve the overall effectiveness rating of Thatcham Park Church of England Primary School following its recent inspection was answered by the Leader of the Council in the absence of the Portfolio Holder for Education and Corporate Infrastructure.

“What percentage and number of children, by school, were offered their first choice of secondary school for this September’s intake?”

A question standing in the name of Councillor Mollie Lock, asked by Councillor Alan Macro, on the subject of the percentage and number of children, by school, who were offered their first choice of secondary school for this September’s intake was answered by the Leader of the Council in the absence of the Portfolio Holder for Education and Corporate Infrastructure.