Agenda, decisions and minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 25^th October 2011.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 25 October 2011 were approved as a true and correct record and signed by the Leader.

To receive any Declarations of Interest from Members.

Councillor Keith Woodhams declared an interest in Agenda Item 20, and reported that, as his interest was personal and prejudicial, he would be leaving the meeting during the course of consideration of the matter.

Councillors David Rendel, Graham Jones, Alan Law and Joe Mooney declared an interest in Agenda Item 7, but reported that, as their interest was personal and not prejudicial, they determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.

Members of the Executive to answer questions submitted by members of the public in accordance with the Executive Procedure Rules contained in the Council’s Constitution.

“At the last full council meeting, Cllr Virginia Von Celsing asked how many questions I have asked at Council Meetings since December last year. As Cllr Von Celsing has never asked a question before, it was surprising that the number of questions asked by a member of the public was more important than issues that are important to those who elected her to this council. Can the Leader of the council confirm how many other councillors have yet to ask a question at Full Council or Executive relating directly to their own ward in the current council term, and whether he believes these councillors are delivering value for money to the electorate?”

Question (a) was withdrawn by Mr. Richard Garvie subsequent to the publication of the agenda and was therefore not considered at the meeting.

“At the time of submitting this question, twelve elected members have an attendance record of less than 70% (including Cllr Von Celsing - 69% and three executive members - Keith Chopping, Joe Mooney and Alan Law). Five elected members have missed half or more of meetings that they were expected to attend, at what point can the electorate demand that they are replaced by people who actually want to represent those wards?”

Question (b) was withdrawn by Mr. Richard Garvie subsequent to the publication of the agenda and was therefore not considered at the meeting.

“At present, the council spend well over three quarters of a million pounds on elected members and support staff. The current administration is quick to support cuts to services for the vulnerable, but do we really need 52 elected members in light of the fact that most do not ask any questions relating to their wards on a regular basis anyway”

Question (c) was withdrawn by Mr. Richard Garvie subsequent to the publication of the agenda and was therefore not considered at the meeting.

“Due to the current economic climate, spending cuts have to be made in West Berkshire due to decisions taken by the Coalition Government. This council can not afford not to act to make savings as some are suggesting as the council would likely end up insolvent. For the record, can the leader of the council confirm how much debt the council has at this moment in time, as this time last year it was just shy of £50m.”

A question standing in the name of Mr. Richard Garvie on the subject of how much debt the Council had at this moment in time would receive a written response from the Leader of the Council as Mr Garvie was not present at the meeting.

“May I thank the leader of the council for listening to concerns relating to the perceived lack of consultation when producing last years budget, and for delivering on his pledge to ensure that service users would be consulted this time around. Can I raise a concern about the fact that most organisations like the Volunteer Centre learned about their proposed budget cuts via the local media and can he address this in future years?”

A question standing in the name of Mr. Richard Garvie on the subject of ensuring service users were consulted on any future proposed budget cuts would receive a written response from the Leader of the Council as Mr Garvie was not present at the meeting.

“With regards to the consultations taking place, all of the publicity delivers those who wish to take part in either one of the consultations to the council plan consultation and I certainly have concerns that even if people do go online to take part, they may be responding to the wrong consultation. Can the council deliver consultation forms for relevant consultations to service users who may be affected by changes to the budget next year, and will the council also ensure that any comments on the council plan consultation are also valid for the relevant consultations to ensure that the voice of anybody who may have responded to the council plan consultation by mistake will still have their voice heard?”

A question standing in the name of Mr. Richard Garvie on the subject of ensuring that consultation forms were delivered to service users would receive a written response from the Leader of the Council as Mr Garvie was not present at the meeting.

“In an interview with Newbury Sound, the leader of the council highlighted that there will be four million pounds worth of cuts made next year that are currently not being disclosed as it is "inappropriate" to inform the public at this stage. Can the leader of the council confirm that the people who use those services are currently being consulted and can he explain why it is "inappropriate" to tell the public where these spending cuts will be made?”

A question standing in the name of Mr. Richard Garvie on the subject of the undisclosed cuts being made next year and whether the people who used those services were currently being consulted and why it was “inappropriate” to tell the public where spending cuts would be made, would receive a written response from the Portfolio Holder for Strategy, Performance and Community Safety as Mr Garvie was not present at the meeting.

“Can the council advise what actions they have taken to try and prevent the removal of the Heavy Rescue Unit from Newbury Fire Station”

A question standing in the name of Mr. Richard Garvie on the subject of what actions the Council had taken to try and prevent the removal of the Heavy Rescue Unit from Newbury Fire Station would receive a written response from the Portfolio Holder for Highways, Transport (Operational), ICT and Customer Services as Mr Garvie was not present at the meeting.

“Can the council advise how much it spends in total when it comes to funding local bus services?”

A question standing in the name of Mr. Richard Garvie on the subject of how much the Council spent in total when it came to funding local bus services would receive a written response from the Portfolio Holder for Highways, Transport (Operational), ICT and Customer Services as Mr Garvie was not present at the meeting.

Councillors or Members of the public may present any petition which they have received. These will normally be referred to the appropriate Committee without discussion.

There were no petitions presented to the Executive.

(CPP1/CPT12,14,15)

Purpose:  To provide information on the new Public Sector Equality Duty and to make recommendations on actions to be taken by the Council to ensure compliance with the general and specific public sector duties under the Equality Act 2010.

Resolved that the recommended actions be approved to comply with the general duty, and with the specific duties to set and public equality objectives and publish data on employees and service users.

This decision is eligible to be ‘called-in’.  However, if the decision has not been ‘called-in’ by 5.00pm on 23 December 2011, then it will be implemented.

The Executive considered a report (Agenda Item 6) which provided information on the new Public Sector Equality Duty and made recommendations on actions to be taken by the Council to ensure compliance with the general and specific public sector duties under the Equality Act 2010.

Councillor Pamela Bale introduced the report which detailed the simplified process which was required following the introduction of the Public Sector Equality Duty and detailed the processes the Council was required to adopt. The need to respect all characteristics of the Equality Act 2010, which replaced the previous six strands of equality legislation, remained.

The requirement to produce Equality Impact Assessments was well embedded across the Council. An Officer had been nominated in each service area to provide a lead on equalities and it was their responsibility to ensure that their service adhered to the Act.

Councillor Jeff Brooks fully understood the reasoning for the proposals outlined in the report. He did however seek some assurance that residents would be made aware that they could opt out of providing equality based information to the Council. Councillor Bale agreed this was important and would be the case.

RESOLVED that the recommended actions to comply with the general duty, the specific duties to set and publish equality objectives, and publish data on employees and service users be approved.

Reason for the decision: To comply with the law on equality.

Other options considered: N/A.

(CPT13)

Purpose:  To inform Members of the Council’s latest financial position.

Resolved that the report be noted.

This decision is not subject to call in as the report is to note only.

(Councillor David Rendel declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 7 by virtue of the fact that his mother resided in a NHS care home and health/social care costs might be raised as part of this item. As his interest was personal and not prejudicial he determined to take part in the debate and vote on the matter).

(Councillor Graham Jones declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 7 by virtue of the fact that his business was a contractor to the NHS and health/social care costs might be raised as part of this item. As his interest was personal and not prejudicial he determined to take part in the debate and vote on the matter).

(Councillor Alan Law declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 7 by virtue of the fact that he was a Governor of the Royal Berkshire NHS Foundation Trust and health/social care costs might be raised as part of this item. As his interest was personal and not prejudicial he determined to take part in the debate and vote on the matter).

(Councillor Joe Mooney declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 7 by virtue of the fact that he was a Governor of Berkshire Healthcare Foundation Trust and health/social care costs might be raised as part of this item. As his interest was personal and not prejudicial he determined to take part in the debate and vote on the matter).

The Executive considered a report (Agenda Item 7) concerning the latest financial position of the Council as at Quarter 2 of 2011/12. Councillor Keith Chopping in introducing the report stated that the forecast revenue overspend for the 2011/12 financial year was £443k. This was one third of one percent of the net budget. There were significant pressures in Adult Social Care and this service was currently forecasting an overspend of £1,705k. The other Council services, and respective directorates, were all forecasting close to, or below, a breakeven position for the end of the financial year. This, together with a recruitment freeze, had kept the forecast overspend to a minimum level.

This report would be considered by the Resource Management Working Group and Councillor Chopping confirmed that the Council was working diligently to address the overspend and was on track to deliver a balanced budget.

The Council’s Capital Programme had 18% of the remaining budget to be committed as at Month 6.

Councillor David Rendel noted that the level of overspend reported seemed to be moving up and down at a rapid rate and therefore it was difficult to ascertain whether the budgets had been well managed. However, Councillor Rendel stated that the report presented to the Executive was in respect of Month 6 figures and he felt that it would be helpful to have an update on the Month 7 or 8 position. Councillor Keith Chopping responded that he had been required to report the Month 6 position and that was what he had done.

Councillor Rendel asked what the level of reserves  ...  view the full minutes text for item 51.

(CPT13)

Purpose:  To consider the calculation of the Taxbase for 2012/13 and to formally set that Taxbase.

Resolved that, pursuant to the Revenue and Benefits Manager’s report, and in accordance with the Local Authorities (Calculation of Taxbase) Regulations 1992, the amount calculated by West Berkshire Council as its Council Taxbase for each Parish for the year 2012/2013 in Appendix B to the report shall be approved.

This decision is not subject to call in as a delay in implementing the decision would cause the Council serious financial implications or could compromise the Council's position, therefore it will be implemented immediately.

The Executive considered a report (Agenda Item 8) which considered the calculation of the Taxbase for 2012/2013 and sought approval to formally set that Taxbase.

Councillor Keith Chopping advised that it was a statutory duty to set the Taxbase on an annual basis and was required by 31 January 2012. This helped inform the Council’s processes for collecting Council Tax and that of the Police and Fire Authorities. It was also necessary to produce the Taxbase for each individual parish and this was detailed in Appendix C to the report which had been made available electronically.

The Taxbase gave a statement on the number of properties currently in the Council Tax lists and this was based on the position as at November 2011. The statement also took into account the properties that were in the course of construction and due for completion/potential charging in the 2012/2013 financial year.

RESOLVED that pursuant to the Revenue and Benefits Manager’s report, and in accordance with the Local Authorities (Calculation of Taxbase) Regulations 1992, the amount calculated by West Berkshire Council as its Council Taxbase for each parish for the year 2012/2013 should be approved in line with the amount shown in the statement attached at Appendix C.

Reason for the decision: The Council had a statutory duty to set its Taxbase by 31 January 2012.

Other options considered: None, as this was a statutory function.

(CPT14)

Purpose:  To note change to the West Berkshire Council Establishment.

Resolved that the report be noted.

This decision is not subject to call in as the report is to note only.

(Councillor Gordon Lundie joined the meeting at 6.22pm).

The Executive considered a report (Agenda Item 9) concerning changes to the West Berkshire Council Establishment as at Quarter 2 of 2011/12.

Councillor Anthony Stansfeld advised that the total Establishment now stood at 1547.40 FTE which was 200 lower than the previous year. The West Berkshire Council funded Establishment had decreased by 44.29 FTE in Quarter Two and now totalled 1449.18 FTE. The overall vacancy rate was 9.6%, down from 11.39% at the end of Quarter One. The rolling voluntary turnover (excluding redundancies) for 2010/11 was 6.31% and for comparison the rate at Quarter Two of 2010/11 was 6.89%.

Councillor Jeff Brooks was concerned to note that the rolling annual turnover rate was 18%, 23% in Community Services, and he felt that this figure was high. Councillor Brooks questioned how service provision could be measured given the reduction in the number of staff. If service provision could  be maintained with a reduction of 255 staff then it was questioned why this had not been done earlier. Councillor Stansfeld responded that a reduction in staffing levels might mean that there would be a consequent reduction in service provision. The Council had been reducing the level of staffing ever since it had been in a position to do so. The previous Labour Government had created a number of jobs within local authorities which had been grant funded but this had created problems when the grant funding was no longer available. Councillor Brooks suggested that this could be the subject of a Scrutiny Review to ascertain whether the level of service provision had reduced or not.

Councillor David Rendel noted that each one of the four Directorates kept posts vacant for a period of time in order to meet the Managed Vacancy Factor. However, vacancy rates had decreased and this appeared to be a contradiction. Councillor Stansfeld confirmed that there was a Managed Vacancy Factor but that did not account for all vacancies. The level of vacancy rates had been lowered considerably over the last six years as at one stage it had been as high as 15%. Vacant posts were often kept open for a period of time in order to achieve savings but the level had reduced considerably. Councillor Joe Mooney confirmed that some posts in Community Services had been kept vacant for those at risk of redundancy  as this would hopefully avoid loss of jobs and the resultant redundancy payments.

RESOLVED that the report be noted.

Reason for the decision: Not applicable.

Other options considered: None.

(CPT2,5,7,8,10,11,13,14,15,16)

Purpose:  To outline the potential of creating a new Environmental Health and Licensing Service with Wokingham Borough Council.

Resolved that:

(1)       the implementation of the proposed Joint Service Delivery of Environmental Health and Licensing with Wokingham Borough Council as set out in the report be supported;

(2)        it be agreed that the Environmental Health and Licensing functions of Wokingham Borough Council be discharged;

(3)       the authority to enter into a Shared Services Agreement with Wokingham Borough Council for the joint service delivery of Environmental Health and Licensing functions be delegated to the Corporate Director for Environment. This will be in accordance with the terms of the draft agreement and delegated authority should be provided to the Corporate Director for Environment in consultation with the Head of Legal and Electoral Services to make any necessary drafting or other amendments to the terms of the agreement which are necessary to reach final agreement but which do not materially affect the intent and substance of the agreement.

This decision is not subject to call in as a delay in implementing the decision would cause the Council serious financial implications or could compromise the Council's position, therefore it will be implemented immediately.

The Executive considered a report (Agenda Item 10) which outlined the potential of creating a new Environmental Health and Licensing Service with Wokingham Borough Council. Appendix two (legal advice) to the report was exempt and was considered as part of the confidential information in Part II of the agenda.

Councillor Hilary Cole explained that the joint service delivery would involve the creation of a joint service with Wokingham Borough Council and the start date was scheduled for 4 January 2012. This would follow the success of the joint arrangement with Wokingham Borough Council for providing Trading Standards. The service would be delivered in line with the schedule detailed within the report and would provide an enhanced degree of resilience for this front line service. The initial agreement, if approved, would be for a period of five years with the potential to extend it for a further five years.

The project would deliver a £130k ongoing saving for the Council from April 2013. The worse case scenario for the Council in terms of redundancy payments was estimated at £157.5k with a maximum number of six FTE’s made redundant across the two unitary authorities.

Governance would be conducted through a joint service review panel that already existed for the joint Trading Standards service and was represented by Portfolio Holders from both unitary authorities.

This joint arrangement would be one of the first across the country for Environmental Health and Licensing.

Councillor Tony Vickers noted that the report was not subject to call-in with the reason given that delays in implementation could have serious financial implications for the Council. He questioned whether this was accurate as the financial risk did not appear to be significant and felt that it was more appropriate for the report to not be eligible for call-in as delays could compromise the Council’s position. David Holling agreed that this call-in reason would be more appropriate and he was asked by Councillor Graham Jones to investigate whether this should have been the case.

Councillor Jeff Brooks felt this was the right way forward, but he did have some concerns. He questioned whether the business case was sufficiently detailed as it only provided an overview. In addition an implementation plan, risk analysis and the cost of implementation had not been included. This would help to give an explanation for the recommended action. There was also a risk of losing good members of staff.

Councillor Cole gave an assurance that a robust project implementation plan had been produced. Negotiations had been ongoing for some months and she had been regularly briefed during the process. Councillor Cole was confident that the service could be delivered efficiently and effectively across the two unitary authorities. She also advised that the costs had been considered in detail and apologised that this detail had been omitted from the report. Councillor Cole offered to provide this separately.

Councillor Cole commented that this item needed to be considered urgently due to the timescales involved and the fact that the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 54.

(CPP1:/CPT1,5,8,10,13)

Purpose:  To inform Members of a joint bid proposal to secure grant funding of up to £2.46 million from the Department for Transport for sustainable non-car transport measures within West Berkshire, and to seek approval for the bid insofar as it relates to West Berkshire.

Resolved that support for the joint bid be approved.

This decision is not subject to call in as a delay in implementing the decision would cause the Council serious financial implications or could compromise the Council's position, therefore it will be implemented immediately.

The Executive considered a report (Agenda Item 11) concerning a joint bid proposal to secure grant funding of up to £2.46m from the Department of Transport for sustainable non-car transport measures within West Berkshire, and approval was therefore sought for the bid in so far as it related to West Berkshire.

Councillor Alan Law reported that in June 2011 Reading Borough Council had submitted an initial proposal for a £24.2m Local Sustainable Transport Fund large bid. This bid aimed to address sustainable non-car transport issues throughout the Reading functional economic area, which included the Eastern Urban Area of West Berkshire. The proposal had been shortlisted by the Department for Transport in August 2011 and a full business case was currently being developed for submission to the DfT by no later than 20^th December 2011.  West Berkshire as a named delivery partner would benefit from up to £2.46m in grant funding for sustainable transport measures in the authority.

Councillor Law advised that details in respect of park and rail had been circulated. The bid would also be used to improve and integrate cycle links and for the creation of a cycle hire project. Councillor Law confirmed that the bid did not propose congestion charges for the East of the District.

Councillor David Betts confirmed his support for the bid as it was consistent with and would help to deliver the aims and objectives of the West Berkshire Local Transport Plan 3.

Councillor Keith Woodhams queried whether funding would be available to reinstate the role of a Travel Plan Officer. Councillor Law confirmed that there would be some element of funding for aspects of travel planning but this would only be applicable for Reading and the East of the District.

RESOLVED that the joint bid be supported.

Reason for the decision: Acceptance of the joint bid by Ministers would depend upon Member support and a demonstration of strong corporate governance.

Other options considered: Not supporting the Reading Large Scheme Bid. However, the LSTF funding was an opportunity to deliver additional measures over and above those already planned that would otherwise require funding from the Council’s own resources, or at the expense of other programmed capital/resource expenditure.

(CPT10,11,12,13,14,15,16)

Purpose:  To inform Members on the complaints activity in this service area during the year 2010-2011.

Resolved that the recommendations set out in the exempt report be approved.

This decision is eligible to be ‘called-in’.  However, if the decision has not been ‘called-in’ by 5.00pm on 23 December 2011, then it will be implemented.

The Executive considered a report (Agenda Item 12) which reported on the statutory complaints process for Children and Young People (Social Care) for the year 1 April 2010 to 31 March 2011.

Councillor Irene Neill informed the Executive that local authorities were required to publish an annual report which detailed this complaints activity. Complaints in 2010/2011 had increased by 48% and this upward trend was also reflected nationally. This was due to an increase in Stage 1 complaints. The small number of Stage 2 complaints had reduced and, as in previous years, no Stage 3 complaints had been received.

The Council’s performance in providing responses to the complaints was above the national average and largely in line with the requirements set under legislation and guidance. The number of complaints received from children had decreased from nine to seven and this reflected the good work undertaken by Social Workers.

Outcomes and findings from complaints provided an essential learning tool and this contributed to improvements in areas such as communications and record keeping. In addition, a number of policies and procedures had been reviewed to ensure they reflected learning from complaints.

Also detailed within the report were the compliments received by the service.

The report highlighted recommendations and areas for development arising from the annual report. These included additional training and continuing briefing sessions at fortnightly team meetings.

RESOLVED that the report and its recommendations would be agreed in preparation for public presentation.

Reason for the decision: Local authorities must, each financial year, publish an annual report in order to keep the local authority informed about the operation of its complaints procedure. The report should be ‘presented to staff, the relevant local authority committee, and to the regulator and general public.’

Other options considered: None.

(All CPPs and CPTs)

Purpose:  To report quarter 2 progress against the key accountable measures and activities for West Berkshire Council 2011/12 and to report by exception those measures/ activities not achieved/ expected to be achieved and cite remedial action that is being taken.

Resolved that:

(1)       progress against the key accountable measures and activities be noted;

(2)       those areas reporting as either ‘amber’ or ‘red’, and any corrective or remedial action which has been or will be put in place, be noted.

This decision is not subject to call in as the report is to note only.

The Executive considered a report (Agenda Item 13) concerning Quarter Two progress against the key accountable measures and activities for West Berkshire Council for 2011/12. and to report by exception those measures/activities which had not been achieved or were not expected to be achieved and to set out any remedial action that was being taken.

Councillor Anthony Stansfeld stated that in total there were 39 key measures or activities monitored and reported. Of these 8 had been classified as annual measures and 2 of those annual measures (relating to key stage results) were reported in Quarter Two.

Of the 33 reported measures and activities, 23 were reported as green for Quarter 2. Seven key measures had been signposted as amber i.e. behind anticipated performance but which were expected to achieve the target by the year end. Three reds were being reported for Quarter 2, i.e. would not be achieved by year end. These were in respect of:

·        The proportion of adult social care users receiving self directed support;

·        Pupils gaining 5+ high grades at GCSE;

·        The adoption of the Local Development Framework by March 2012.

Exception reports had been provided to explain the “red” measures/activities.

Councillor David Rendel referred to page 193 of the agenda and in particular the measure/activity in respect of the percentage of Contact Centre calls answered within 30 seconds. The Q2 outturn figure was 77% whereas the target was 80%. If that figure of 77% was cumulative then the Quarter 2 outturn would be around 74% which meant to achieve the target of 80% by year end the outturn figure would need to be 86% in Quarter 3 which would be extremely difficult to achieve. The same also applied to the Planning targets. Councillor Anthony Stansfeld noted the comments made in respect of the Contact Centre and felt that it would be necessary to see where the figure ended up at the end of the year. Staff cuts had taken place within the Contact Centre whereas demand and the number of services accommodated had increased. Councillor David Betts confirmed that he had discussed this issue with the Head of Service who had confirmed that this target was expected to come back on track in the second half of the year.

Councillor Alan Law confirmed that there had been an issue in Development Control earlier in the year as the Council had received an increased level of planning applications with a reduced number of staff. An Action Plan had been put in place to address the issues which included overtime, employing temporary staff and moving staff around in-house. Targets had been set in order to get back to normality and Councillor Law felt that this had almost been achieved. Registration had been back on track for the last couple of months. This was the reason that the targets had been graduated and it was hoped that the Service would be back to normal by the end of 2011.

Councillor Roger Hunneman had concerns that the target in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 57.

(CPT3,11,13)

Purpose:  To set out a proposed charging policy for applicants placed in bed and breakfast as temporary accommodation under the Council’s homelessness duties.

Resolved that:

the proposed charging policy for applicants placed in Bed & Breakfast as temporary accommodation under the Council's homelessness duties, as set out at section 3 of the report, be approved;

the application of retrospective charging for those applicants who have been advised, since 1 September 2011, that a charge would be made and that they would be invoiced be approved.

This decision is eligible to be ‘called-in’.  However, if the decision has not been ‘called-in’ by 5.00pm on 23 December 2011, then it will be implemented.

The Executive considered a report (Agenda Item 14) which set out a proposed charging policy for applicants placed in Bed and Breakfast as temporary accommodation under the Council’s homelessness duties.

Councillor Alan Law introduced the report by advising that people who presented and were assessed as homeless often required temporary accommodation. The need to use Bed and Breakfast as temporary accommodation had recently become necessary for the first time in some years. There were currently two households using Bed and Breakfast as temporary accommodation at the present time.

Currently the Council charged applicants who were placed in the Council’s accommodation on a temporary basis, whereas no charge was levied for those placed in Bed and Breakfast. Approval of the proposal to charge those placed in Bed and Breakfast would make for a more equitable system for all applicants.

In addition, applicants since 1 September 2011 had been advised that a charge would be introduced and that they would be invoiced retrospectively. The Executive was asked to approve this proposal.

Councillor Tony Vickers was saddened that it had again become necessary for Bed and Breakfast to be used as temporary accommodation, but was content with the proposals being made. He noted that it was possible at present to recover some costs of Bed and Breakfast accommodation through housing benefit, but questioned the ability to do so under universal benefit once this replaced benefits including housing benefit. He felt that the changes to the benefits system was a potential future topic for a scrutiny review. Councillor Law commented that the implications of universal benefit would be closely considered once guidance had been received.

RESOLVED that:

1.         The proposed charging policy for applicants placed in Bed and Breakfast as temporary accommodation under the Council’s homelessness duties, as set out at section 3 of the report, be approved.

2.         The application of retrospective charging for those applicants who had been advised, since 1 September 2011, that a charge would be made and that they would be invoiced be approved.

Reason for the decision: The Council had previously operated a charging policy for Bed and Breakfast, however, for a number of years, the Council had not used Bed and Breakfast accommodation so the policy had become outdated. Due to national trends in homelessness, the Council was resorting to use of Bed and Breakfast accommodation as emergency temporary accommodation. Currently, the Council charged applicants placed in our own accommodation but no charge was levied for applicants placed in Bed and Breakfast. The proposal sought to introduce equity to ensure that all applicants were treated and charged fairly, regardless of where their temporary accommodation placement was.

Other options considered: N/A.

(CPP1/CPT3,11)

Purpose:  To recommend that the Council’s Allocation Policy in respect of bedroom allocations is amended to bring social housing and private rented housing into line, reflecting the proposed changes in Local Housing Allowance and to ensure equity across housing tenures.

Resolved that the amendment of the Council’s Housing Allocation Policy to bring the bedroom allocation for social housing into line with the LHA regulations of the private rented sector, as set out in the report, be approved.

This decision is eligible to be ‘called-in’.  However, if the decision has not been ‘called-in’ by 5.00pm on 23 December 2011, then it will be implemented.

The Executive considered a report (Agenda Item 15) concerning amendment of the Council’s Allocation Policy in respect of bedroom allocations to bring social housing and private rented housing into line, reflecting the proposed changes in Local Housing Allowance and to ensure equity across housing tenures.

Councillor Alan Law stated that from April 2013 it was intended to introduce size criteria for new and existing working-age Housing Benefit claimants living in the social rented sector. The size criteria would replicate the size criteria that applied to Housing Benefit claimants in the private rented sector whose claims were assessed using the local housing allowance rules. The Government had estimated that 26% of tenants were likely to be affected by this change in the South East, with an average loss of housing benefit of £15 per week. There was also potential for the measure to have a greater impact in rural areas and areas with lower concentrations of social rented housing.

Councillor Law reported that given the high level of demand on the Housing Service at the current time and having regard to the proposed future benefit changes, it was considered appropriate to implement the change in the Allocation Policy at this stage in order to bring it in line with the private rented sector.

RESOLVED that the amendment of the Council’s Housing Allocation Policy to bring the bedroom allocation for social housing into line with the LHA regulations of the private rented sector, as set out in the report, be approved.

Reason for the decision: From April 2013 it was intended to introduce size criteria for new and existing working age Housing Benefit claimants living in the social rented sector. The Council was currently assisting housing applicants into social rented accommodation that would be impacted by this change and therefore into accommodation that would potentially be unaffordable in the future. By taking the decision to amend the allocation policy now, the Council could reduce the number of social housing tenants who would be impacted by this future benefit change.

Other options considered: The Council could wait until the benefit change is implemented: however, this would result in a higher number of social housing tenants being impacted by the changes.

(CPP1,2/CPT2,5,6,7,9,10,11,12,13,14,15)

Purpose:  To seek approval for the Council being a part of the Superfast Broadband initiative across Berkshire.

Resolved that West Berkshire Council’s financial commitment to this programme be underwritten, subject to:

§         securing at least £230k of investment from West Berkshire Parishes and Businesses

§         securing necessary investment from other Berkshire unitaries.

This decision is eligible to be ‘called-in’.  However, if the decision has not been ‘called-in’ by 5.00pm on 23 December 2011, then it will be implemented.

The Executive considered a report (Agenda Item 16) which provided an overview of the Superfast Berkshire initiative and how it would be funded and delivered. Appendices A and B to the report were exempt and were considered as part of the confidential information in Part II of the agenda.

Councillor David Betts was pleased to report that the Council was taking the lead on behalf of the Local Enterprise Partnership in bringing improvements to broadband coverage, which was a key social and economic opportunity for Berkshire.

Berkshire had been allocated £1.43 million by Broadband Delivery UK (BDUK). In order to receive this funding, the Berkshire unitary authorities would need to match fund this figure. Should this be achieved then Berkshire could expect to secure an additional £2.86 million from communications providers and this would achieve the total required budget.

West Berkshire Council’s contribution was £456k over three financial years (2012/13, 2013/14 and 2014/15). £225k of this funding was already committed from the Council’s Capital Programme, leaving £231k to be found for the three year period. It was hoped that this investment could be achieved from local communities and local businesses, alongside investment from the other Berkshire Unitaries.

Approval of the recommended actions would help to fill the existing market gap. It would enable the delivery of superfast broadband to 90% of premises across Berkshire which would be of particular benefit to small rural communities. The remaining 10% would receive a standard level of coverage.

Councillor Alan Law raised a question on behalf of parishes as to what would happen in the event that a parish was unable to make their contribution in part or in full – would the project only be rolled out to those who were able to contribute? Councillor Betts responded by saying that there had already been strong support from the parishes with some already confirming that they would be making a contribution. He was confident that the funding gap could be met.

Councillor Paul Bryant queried what monitoring arrangements were in place to ensure that the work was conducted by the appointed contractor. Councillor Betts explained that this was a national scheme with investment from Government and the appointed contractor. As a result the appointed contractor would be committed to the project. However, monitoring would still take place.

Councillor Stansfeld questioned the security of the system being installed following the loss of broadband experienced in Kintbury. Councillor Betts advised that copper wiring would not be used and would instead be delivered by the use of fibre optic cables.

RESOLVED that West Berkshire Council’s financial commitment to this programme would be underwritten, subject to:

·        securing at least £230k of investment from West Berkshire Parishes and businesses; and

·        securing necessary investment from other Berkshire Unitaries.

Reason for the decision: Improving broadband across Berkshire represents a key social and economic development opportunity for all of the Berkshire Unitaries. By securing a £1.43 million contribution to the programme across Berkshire we could expect an inward investment of £4.29  ...  view the full minutes text for item 60.

Members of the Executive to answer questions submitted by Councillors in accordance with the Executive Procedure Rules contained in the Council’s Constitution.

“What is the total cost of relaying the paving around the Council’s Market Street Offices, and which budget did this come from?”

A question standing in the name of Councillor David Rendel on the subject of the total cost of relaying the paving around the Council’s Market Street Offices, and the budget it came from was answered by the Portfolio Holder for Finance.

“In view of the costs to this Council and the Community in general of the consequences of a major flood affecting Newbury Town Centre and given the almost complete failure of the local business to contribute to the balance of funds needed to ensure the implementation of the Newbury Flood Alleviation Scheme can the Portfolio Holder tell me how the necessary £111,000 will be found to enable this vital scheme to go ahead on schedule?”

A question standing in the name of Councillor Roger Hunneman on the subject of how the funds needed to ensure the implementation of the Newbury Flood Alleviation Scheme would be found was answered by the Portfolio Holder for Strategy, Performance and Community Safety.

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. Rule 9.10.4 of the Constitution refers.

RESOLVED that members of the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the under-mentioned items of business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as contained in the relevant paragraphs of Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972, as amended by the Local Government (Access to Information)(Variation) Order 2006. Rule 4.2 of the Constitution also refers.

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

To consider the confidential appendices to this report.

As item 22.

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

The exempt appendices in respect of the report on Superfast Broadband for Berkshire were noted.

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

(Paragraph 6 – information relating to proposed action to be taken by the Local Authority)

(CPT1)

Purpose:  To advise Members of the situation relating to the proposed bridge over the railway at Newbury Racecourse and of the potential liabilities which may arise to the Council.

Resolved that the recommendations set out in the exempt report be approved.

This decision is eligible to be ‘called-in’.  However, if the decision has not been ‘called-in’ by 5.00pm on 23 December 2011, then it will be implemented.

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

(Paragraph 6 – information relating to proposed action to be taken by the Local Authority)

(Councillor Keith Woodhams declared a personal and prejudicial interest in Agenda Item 20 by virtue of the fact that he worked for the contractor and his daughter worked for the developer. As his interest was personal and prejudicial he left the meeting at 7.20pm and took no part in the debate or voting on the matter).

The Executive considered an exempt report (Agenda Item 20) concerning the proposed bridge over the railway at Newbury Racecourse, the potential liabilities which might arise to the Council and the proposed Section 38 agreement.

RESOLVED that the recommended action as set out within the exempt report be approved.

Reason for the decision: As set out in the exempt report.

Other options considered: To reject the recommendation, but this was not pursued subject to the reasons set out in the exempt report.

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

(CPP2/CPT9,13)

Purpose: To seek approval for the sale of the surplus land at The Winchcombe School site.

Resolved that the recommendations set out in the exempt report be approved.

This decision is not subject to call in as:a delay in implementing the decision would cause the Council serious financial implications or could compromise the Council's position, therefore it will be implemented immediately.

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

(Councillor Keith Woodhams rejoined the meeting at 7.24pm)

The Executive considered an exempt report (Agenda Item 21) concerning approval for the sale of the surplus land at The Winchcombe School site.

RESOLVED that the recommended action as set out within the exempt report be approved.

Reason for the decision: To enable realisation of a capital receipt to fund the remodelling/rebuild project.

Other options considered: A significant proportion of WBC capital resources was being invested in the remodelling/rebuild project, namely: PCP Grant, WBC funding, Modernisation Grant, S106 and EY Grant. With limited resources available the balance of the cost of the project could only be met through the sale of the surplus land.

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

(CPT3,10,11,13)

Purpose:  To outline the options available to the Council for delivering the home improvement service and the implications this may have for staffing.

Resolved that the recommendations set out in the exempt report be approved.

This decision is eligible to be ‘called-in’.  However, if the decision has not been ‘called-in’ by 5.00pm on 23 December 2011, then it will be implemented.

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

The Executive considered an exempt report (Agenda Item 22) concerning the options available to the Council for delivering the home improvement service and the implications this might have for staffing.

RESOLVED that the recommended action as set out within the exempt report be approved.

Reason for the decision: The service was currently run under a joint contract between West Berkshire, Reading and Wokingham Councils. The contract was let for three years with the option to extend for two years. The contract was currently in year four and a decision on future delivery of the service was required.

Other options considered: Options were as set out in the exempt report.

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

(Paragraph 6 – information relating to proposed action to be taken by the Local Authority)

(CPT7,8,10,11,13)

Purpose:  To consider options for the future of support delivered in sheltered housing schemes.

Resolved that the recommendations set out in the exempt report be approved.

This decision is eligible to be ‘called-in’.  However, if the decision has not been ‘called-in’ by 5.00pm on 23 December 2011, then it will be implemented.

This exempt report was withdrawn subsequent to publication of the agenda and was therefore not considered at the meeting.

(Paragraph 4 – information relating to terms proposed in negotiations)

(CPP1/CPT2, 3)

Purpose:  To advise and update Members regarding recent progress in connection with the Market Street Development and to seek approval of various agreements which have been in discussion between the parties seeking to bring the scheme forward.

Resolved that the recommendations set out in the exempt report be approved.

This decision is eligible to be ‘called-in’.  However, if the decision has not been ‘called-in’ by 5.00pm on 23 December 2011, then it will be implemented.

(Paragraph 4 – information relating to terms proposed in negotiations)

The Executive considered an exempt report (Agenda Item 24) concerning recent progress in connection with the Market Street development and sought approval of various agreements which had been in discussion between the parties who sought to bring the scheme forward.

RESOLVED that the recommended actions as set out within the exempt report be approved.

Reason for the decision: To enable the redevelopment of land between Market Street and the Railway Station in order to achieve the aims of Newbury Vision 2025.

Other options considered: As set out in the exempt report.

(Paragraph 1 – information relating to an individual)

(Paragraph 2 – information identifying an individual)

(CPT13)

Purpose: To set out the staffing implications which are likely to result from the setting of the Council’s 2012/13 revenue budget and to seek approval to make the redundancy payments associated with the required staffing implications.

Resolved that the recommendations set out in the exempt report be approved.

This decision is eligible to be ‘called-in’.  However, if the decision has not been ‘called-in’ by 5.00pm on 23 December 2011, then it will be implemented.

(Paragraph 1 – information relating to an individual)

(Paragraph 2 – information identifying an individual)

The Executive considered an exempt report (Agenda Item 25) concerning the staffing implications which were likely to result from the setting of the Council’s 2012/13 revenue budget and sought approval to make the redundancy payments associated with the required staffing implications.

RESOLVED that the recommended actions as set out within the exempt report be approved.

Reason for the decision: The Council needed to make significant savings from its revenue budget in 2012/13. These savings included the need to reduce staffing costs.

Given the time required to manage staffing reductions this paper was having to be brought to the Executive ahead of the formal budget paper which would come through the Executive on its way to Council during February and March next year. This report only covered revenue savings for 2012/13 that required staff reductions to be made.

Other options considered: None. It was Council practice to manage staff reductions in the manner outlined in this paper.

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

Paragraph 5 – information relating to legal privilege)

Purpose: To consider the legal advice provided to the Council.

As item 17.

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

(Paragraph 5 – information relating to legal privilege)

The exempt appendix in respect of the report on the Environmental Health and Licensing Joint Service Delivery was noted.

(Paragraph 1 – information relating to an individual)

(Paragraph 2 – information identifying an individual)

(CPT13)

Purpose: To set out the final set of proposals in relation to the Council’s future senior management structure following internal consultation during the summer of 2011.

Resolved that the recommendations set out in the exempt report be approved.

This decision is not subject to call in as a delay in implementing the decision would cause the Council serious financial implications or could compromise the Council's position, therefore it will be implemented immediately.

(Paragraph 1 – information relating to an individual)

(Paragraph 2 – information identifying an individual)

(Councillor Tony Vickers left the meeting at 7.53pm)

The Executive considered an exempt report (Agenda Item 27) concerning the final set of proposals in relation to the Council’s future senior management structure following internal consultation during the summer of 2011.

RESOLVED that the recommendations set out in Section 7 of the exempt report be approved.

Reason for the decision: It was necessary to consider the senior management structure given both the financial pressures facing the Council and the need to react to emerging policy developments at a national level.

Other options considered: These were set out within the main body of the exempt report as appropriate and highlighted in the consultation response.