Agenda, decisions and minutes

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.

A question standing in the name of Mr Peter Norman on the subject of when the Council would make the full report commissioned on London Road available to the general public or, if not the full report, a substantive part of its recommendations was answered by the Portfolio Holder for Highways, Transport (Operations), Emergency Planning and Newbury Vision.

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.

Resolved that the Housing Allocations Policy be approved and adopted.

This decision is not subject to call in as:

·      the item has been considered by the Overview and Scrutiny Commission, or has been the subject of a review undertaken by another body within the preceding six months.

therefore it will be implemented immediately.

The Executive considered a report (Agenda Item 6) which sought approval to adopt the Council’s policy for assessment and allocation of applicants seeking social housing.

Councillor Roger Croft stated that this policy was the product of 18 months work and Officers had been assisted in developing the detail of the policy by a cross-party task group of Members which had been overseen by the Overview and Scrutiny Management Commission.

The policy provided details about who qualified for an allocation of social housing in West Berkshire and the priority they would be given. New qualifying criteria would ensure that West Berkshire’s social housing would be directed towards those applicants who had a defined local connection to the district and those who had the greatest housing need. These principles had been supported throughout the two public consultations that had been held.

The Housing Act 1996 required local authorities to give preference to certain groups of applicants and the policy did this by awarding points for specific issues of housing need. During testing of the proposed housing needs assessment it became clear that the current practice of awarding points purely for the time the applicants had been on the housing register skewed the housing need assessment could result in allocations being made to applicants who were not in the greatest housing need. Therefore, these ‘time waiting points’ had been removed from the final draft of the Housing Allocation Policy. Appendix C to the report set out a full summary of all amendment made to the policy following consultation.

The policy would be implemented through the Choice Lettings Scheme which offered accountability and transparency in the allocation of social housing in West Berkshire.

Councillor Graham Jones referred to a specific case in Lambourn where a property had been allocated to a person outside the village. However, they had been service personnel and he asked for clarification on how they would fit into the policy. Councillor Croft responded that armed personnel and their families were generally exempt from the local connection qualifying criteria. In particular, those who were currently serving in the regular armed forces or who had served in the regular armed forces within the last five years. Also bereaved spouses or civil partners of members of the armed forces whose death was as a result of their service and who were being asked to leave Ministry of Defence (MoD) accommodation. Existing or former members of the reserve forces who were suffering from a serious injury or disability which was wholly attributable to their service would also qualify for local connection. This meant that applicants who fell into one of those groups would be deemed to have a local connection for the purposes of housing allocations and would qualify for the Common Housing Register.

Councillor Irene Neill referred to the fact that Looked After Children (LAC) were often placed outside the district and she queried whether those children would lose their local connection if they wished to return to the area after  ...  view the full minutes text for item 34.

Resolved that the proposed formula for 2014/15 be approved.

This decision is not subject to call in as:

·      a delay in implementing the decision this 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 7) concerning the proposed changes to the formula used for allocating funding to schools in 2014/15.

Councillor Irene Neill explained that major changes to the school funding system occurred in 2013/14 and for 2014/15, some additional minor changes were being recommended to the Executive by the Schools’ Forum. This followed a detailed review and period of consultation with schools. There were four changes to the formula proposed as set out in the report and below:

(1)       The Department for Education (DfE) had introduced the optional use of a sparsity factor for 2014/15 in response to concerns raised about the viability of small schools. However, schools in West Berkshire were not generally sparse with only four of the Council’s fifteen primary schools with 100 pupils or less meeting the DfE’s two mile distance criteria. This proposal was to acknowledge use of the sparsity factor, but for primary schools the distance criteria was proposed to be raised to three miles to reflect the meaning of what was sparse. Under this criteria, no primary school would qualify for additional funding, but one secondary school would qualify for an additional £100k. A letter had been sent to the Schools Minister, David Laws, at his request with suggestions of an alternative funding methodology to help resolve the problem of small school viability and to be fair to all small schools, but in the meantime efforts would be made to look at other solutions such as how the most vulnerable schools could be structured in order to reduce costs.

(2)       The Council allocated over £2.4m of the total formula fund to schools which went towards raising the attainment of pupils from deprived backgrounds. This was in addition to the pupil premium. The methodology used to best target this funding had been reviewed to ensure it was going to the schools and pupils that needed it most. Firstly it was proposed that ‘Free School Meals Ever 6’ was used, being the indicator for pupils who had been eligible for free school meals in the last six years rather than just the pupils currently eligible, this was so that those pupils who might drift in and out of eligibility were captured. This would be the same indicator used for allocating the Pupil Premium Grant. Secondly it was proposed to increase the weighting of the Ever 6 indicator from 50% to 75% and thus reduce the use of the Income Deprivation Affecting Children Index (IDACI) to 25% to reflect that there were some concerns about the reliability of the IDACI indicator in identifying deprived pupils.

(3)       Proposal three was linked to proposal two as the Council could only use one type of free school meal indicator throughout the entire formula. Therefore by changing to Ever 6 for the funding of deprivation, the Council would also need to change it for the funding of low level Special Educational Needs (SEN), for primary schools this indicator was used for one third of their SEN  ...  view the full minutes text for item 35.

Resolved that the proposals as set out in the report’s conclusion be agreed and Officers to be instructed to initiate implementation.

This decision is eligible to be ‘called-in’.  However, if the decision has not been ‘called-in’ by 5.00pm on 25^th October 2013, then it will be implemented.

The Executive considered a report (Agenda Item 8) which set out a proposed development strategy for John O’Gaunt School which linked to broader education provision in Hungerford.

Councillor Irene Neill in introducing the report stated that it sought to address the issue of securing sustainable high quality all age education in Hungerford going forward. As well as addressing the issue of standards and financial viability, it also sought to plan creatively for the provision of additional primary places in the town.

John O’Gaunt School had been built some 50 years ago and the buildings remained pretty much unchanged since that time. John O’Gaunt had been considered for the Building Schools for the Future scheme but had been unsuccessful. The Council then allocated capital funding to improve three schools – The Downs had been completed in the previous year and Kennet had been completed this year. Work was due to commence on John O’Gaunt in the near future. In order to provide a fully rounded education the teaching facilities were very important, especially in the technological subjects, and therefore a remodelling and modernising project could bring the school facilities up to the 21^st century.

Councillor Neill highlighted the fact that Hungerford had been affected by the national increase in numbers of children requiring places in primary phase and Hungerford Primary School had already had internal changes in order for them to be able to accommodate greater numbers. However, this would not be sufficient to cope with the numbers of children anticipated over the next few years, without taking into account children from any additional housing. It was therefore extremely likely that an additional primary school would be needed in the not too distant future. The primary school site was restricted and obtaining a satisfactory extension on the site would be difficult. In addition, Hungerford was a small market town and therefore Councillor Neill felt that a primary school with a roll of over 600 pupils would not be appropriate.

The importance of retaining secondary education in Hungerford was recognised and therefore initial discussions had taken place with senior management and the Governing Body of the school. John O’Gaunt had strong leadership and local support and the wish was to build on this so that the school could become outstanding over time. The issue of financial viability also needed to be addressed to ensure that the school could attract the best teachers. In addition, it was necessary to plan for the additional primary places needed in the town to meet demographic growth and any future new housing. One way to address this would be to look at the benefits of other 4-18 school developments elsewhere in the country. John O’Gaunt had been built for some 750 pupils but there were only 440 on the roll at present and a feasibility study was being carried out to look at how it could be remodelled to include a small primary school area i.e. a school with annual intake of 15 (half year entry),  ...  view the full minutes text for item 36.

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

A question standing in the name of Councillor Keith Woodhams on the subject of why a road in the district had had its speed limit/road dimensions changed by the Council without the correct Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) being applied was answered by the Portfolio Holder for Highways, Transport (Operations), Emergency Planning and Newbury Vision.