Agenda, decisions and minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 8^th May 2014.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 8 May 2014 were approved as a true and correct record and signed by the Leader.

Councillor David Rendel sought clarification in respect of the following item:

Item 102 – Funding for Resurfacing of Flood Damaged Roads

Councillor David Rendel referred to the final paragraph on page four of the minutes which stated that ‘The report was seeking approval for the shortfall to be funded from Council reserves as this would require no additional revenue provision’. However, the fourth paragraph on page five of the minutes highlighted Councillor Rendel’s view that there would be a revenue implication and Councillor Alan Law’s response at the last meeting was to confirm that there would be a small cost to the Council, although he did not specify if this was a revenue or capital cost.

Subsequent to the last Executive meeting, Councillor Rendel had exchanged e-mails with Andy Walker which confirmed that there was indeed a revenue implication in meeting costs arising from flood damaged roads.

Councillor Rendel requested that the minutes be amended to confirm that there would be a revenue implication.

Councillor Gordon Lundie responded by giving his view that the minutes accurately reflected the discussion held last time and he reminded Members that minutes did not serve as a verbatim record of the debate, rather as a summary.

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.

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. (Note: There were no questions submitted relating to items not included on this Agenda.)

There were no public questions submitted.

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.

(CSP: 2)

Purpose:  To set out the process and seek approval to proceed towards implementation of a Streetworks Permit Scheme.

Resolved that the report be approved and authority be delegated to the Head of Highways and Transport to make an application to the Department for Transport to join the South East Permit Scheme.

This decision is eligible to be ‘called-in’.  However, if the decision has not been ‘called-in’ by 5.00pm on 26 June 2014, then it will be implemented.

The Executive considered a report (Agenda Item 6) which set out the process and sought approval to proceed towards the implementation of a Streetworks Permit Scheme.

Councillor Pamela Bale reported that the implementation of a permit scheme would be good news for local residents as it would lead to a reduction in traffic congestion. The permit scheme would place a requirement on utility companies to apply for a permit and this would enable the Council to set conditions prior to street works and road works commencing.

The permit scheme would be self funding and the cost of employing two additional members of staff to operate the scheme would be met by the income achieved from permit applications.

Permits schemes had already been introduced in two county councils in the south east and congestion had reduced as a result in these areas. An application from Bracknell Forest Borough Council had recently been approved by the Department for Transport.

Permission was sought from the Executive to delegate authority to the Head of Highways and Transport to apply to the Department for Transport to join the South East Permit Scheme. It was hoped that approval would be granted by December 2014 and that the scheme could then be operational from April 2015.

Councillor Graham Pask welcomed the proposal as it would give the Council greater controls and a greater ability to co-ordinate work on the highway.

Councillor Roger Hunneman queried whether there was a mechanism by which to issue fines with the scheme and if so their amounts. Councillor Bale was of the hope that the number of fines would reduce with the scheme in place compared to the number issued with the current notice system. She did however feel that fines would be easier to impose. Councillor Bale added that the level of fine would likely be unchanged from the existing rate, but this would be confirmed in due course.

Councillor Keith Woodhams noted from the report that the South East Permit Scheme was introduced in 2011 and questioned the Council’s delay in joining the scheme. Councillor Bale responded by pointing out that the two local authorities who had already introduced the scheme were county councils and it was useful to understand the success of the scheme in these larger local authorities before West Berkshire looked to join. It had proved to be effective in these other areas and the report therefore recommended joining the scheme.

Councillor Alan Macro noted that the consultation process was being held from mid May 2014 to mid July 2014 and questioned whether it would be more appropriate to await the outcome of the consultation before making a decision or adding a caveat to the recommendation to reflect that consultation had yet to conclude. Councillor Bale referred to paragraph 5.2 of the report which stated that the formal application would be made to the Department for Transport in late July 2014 following consideration of any consultation responses.

RESOLVED that the Executive approved the report and delegated authority  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

(CSP: 6)

Purpose:  To inform Members of provisional financial outturn for the Council for the financial year 2013-14. To note that these figures are provisional and may change during closedown and as a result of External Audit.

Resolved that the report be noted.

This decision is not subject to call in as:

·      Report is to note only

therefore it will be implemented immediately.

(CSP:1,2,3,4 and 8)

Purpose:  To report year end outturns against the key accountable measures and activities contained in the 2013/14 Council performance framework and to report by exception those measures / activities not achieved and cite remedial action taken and the impact it has had.

Resolved that progress against the key accountable measures and activities contained in the Council’s performance framework would be noted and those areas reporting as ‘amber’ (Education only) or ‘red’ reviewed to ensure that appropriate corrective or remedial action was put 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 8) which reported year end outturns against the key accountable measures and activities contained in the 2013/14 Council Performance Framework, and which reported by exception those measures/activities not achieved, remedial action taken and its impact.

Councillor Roger Croft reported that of the 47 measures captured within this basket, outturns were available for 46 at the time of print. 36 were reported as green – achieved at the end of the financial year, 1 was reported as amber – this related to education which operated on an academic year and therefore would conclude at the end of July 2014, and 9 measures were reported as red – anticipated outturns were not achieved at the end of the financial year.

Throughout the year a suite of measures in Education was being used to set a baseline for subsequent years. For completeness, these were included in the list of key accountable measures, although no Red/Amber/Green ratings would be given this year.

Councillor Croft then brought to the Executive’s attention an error in the reported figures for Key Stage 4/GCSE results for maintained schools shown on page 67 of the agenda. The reported figure should read 66% of pupils at West Berkshire maintained schools achieving 5+ A*-C’s at GCSE (including English and Maths), rather than the 62% shown in the report.

As normal, the report began with contextual measures concerning the State of the District. Councillor Croft made particular reference to:

·              A 42% drop in the number of ‘working age’ Job Seekers Allowance (JSA) claimants (those aged 16-64) compared to the same time last year.

·              A 55% drop in the number of young people (18-24) claiming JSA.

·              A 43% fall in the number of domestic burglaries.

The report then considered measures of volume for Council Services. Of particular note were:

·              A 12% increase in the number of Looked After Children.

·              A 32% increase in the number of children subject to a Child Protection Plan.

·              A 24% increase in the number of visits to sports and leisure centres.

·              A 56% increase in the number of online library visits.

·              A 27% increase in the number of enquiries through the Contact Centre or Streetcare received online or through e-mail.

As previously stated, 36 of the 46 reported measures had been achieved. Areas where the Council had significantly outperformed anticipated outturns included:

·              The number of active foster carers had increased from 61 to 73.

·              The proportion of people supported to move on from short term accommodation into independent living had increased from 63% to 77%.

·              An excellent improvement in time taken to determine major and “other” planning applications.

Councillor Roger Hunneman referred to the exception reports in relation to safeguarding and questioned the action being taken to get performance back on track in this important area of Council activity. He did however acknowledge that performance was only just short of target in these areas.

Councillor Irene Neill explained that the measure to maintain the percentage of Child Protection Reviews carried out  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

(CSP: 2, 3 and 7)

Purpose:  To outline West Berkshire’s expected broadband coverage position by the end of 2015 and explain how this can be improved by drawing down further government (BDUK) funding known as the Superfast Extension Programme (SEP).

Resolved that the provision for broadband improvement in the West Berkshire Council Capital Programme be increased from its current level of £400k to take maximum advantage of available Government grant funding under its Superfast Extension Programme (SEP) scheme.

This decision is eligible to be ‘called-in’.  However, if the decision has not been ‘called-in’ by 5.00pm on 26 June 2014, then it will be implemented.

The Executive considered a report (Agenda Item 9) which outlined West Berkshire’s expected broadband coverage position by the end of 2015 and which explained how this could be improved by drawing down further government (Broadband Delivery UK (BDUK)) funding known as the Superfast Extension Programme (SEP).

Councillor Roger Croft explained that the commercial rollout of high speed broadband was nearly complete and provided Superfast Broadband capability to 65% of West Berkshire premises. However, the commercial programme would leave nearly 24,000 premises in West Berkshire with slower speed or no broadband.

The Superfast Berkshire Project, augmented by additional funding from BDUK, was signed last year and would extend Superfast Broadband to over half (12,700) of those premises not included in the commercial programme. It would also bring at least basic broadband to every premise in West Berkshire. This project was running on schedule and to budget and the first premises in West Berkshire would have their capability upgraded next month with a target completion date for the whole project of the end of 2015. This programme would bring Superfast Broadband to 83% of West Berkshire premises.

The next phase of the broadband programme, the SEP, had commenced. Richard Benyon MP and Councillor Gordon Lundie met the Government minister for Culture, Communications and Creative Industries, Ed Vaizey MP, earlier in the year and received a subsequent pledge of £3.56m of funding for the whole of Berkshire. This had to be match funded by local authorities. The report outlined the Council’s commitment to rural broadband by pledging a further £1.475m of Council funding to the project. This infrastructure investment by the Council, match funded by the Government and with an additional substantial investment from the Thames Valley Local Economic Partnership (LEP) meant that the total project would invest over £3.25m into developing the broadband infrastructure in West Berkshire.

Value for money had been a constant watchword and there would always be premises where the cost of providing upgraded broadband would be too high. At the end of the SEP in December 2017, it was anticipated that West Berkshire’s superfast broadband coverage would reach 95.4% through a mix of fibre and wireless technologies. All the remaining properties would benefit from fast or at least basic broadband.

The Executive had long recognised the importance of Superfast Broadband to the economy of West Berkshire and to quality of life especially in rural areas. Councillor Croft commended the report and asked the Executive to approve the additional capital investment into the technical infrastructure of West Berkshire.

Councillor Alan Macro made reference to the funding made available by the LEP and queried whether there was any risk associated with the receipt of this funding. He was pleased to note that a local authority subsidy ceiling of £250 per premise per phase was in place as well as an absolute ceiling on the cost (all funding sources) of upgrading an individual premise of £1500.

In terms of costs, Councillor Croft commented that the proposed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

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

“Can the Executive Member for Highways and Transport update me on what is causing the delay in dealing with the repeated flooding at the eastern corner of the pedestrian crossing, between the Post Office and the Kennet Centre Shopping Centre in Newbury please?”

A question standing in the name of Councillor Keith Woodhams on the subject of what was causing the delay in dealing with repeated flooding at the eastern corner of the pedestrian crossing between the Post Office and the Kennet Centre Shopping Centre in Newbury was answered by the Portfolio Holder for Highways, Transport (Operations), Emergency Planning and Newbury Vision.

“How many purchasers have been helped by the Council's "First Step" mortgage deposit scheme?”

A question standing in the name of Councillor Alan Macro on the subject of the number of purchasers that had been helped by the Council’s “First Step” mortgage deposit scheme was answered by the Portfolio Holder for Strategy and Performance, Housing, ICT and Corporate Support, Legal and Strategic Support.

“Given that many businesses are closed and that many people visit Newbury for leisure purposes on bank holidays, will the Executive Member please consider reducing car parking charges on bank holidays to those imposed on Sundays”

A question standing in the name of Councillor Jeff Brooks on the subject of whether consideration would be given to reducing car parking charges on bank holidays to those imposed on Sundays was answered by the Portfolio Holder for Highways, Transport (Operations), Emergency Planning and Newbury Vision.

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 8.10.4 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 involved 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 3 – information relating to financial/business affairs of particular person)

Purpose: To note the financial information contained in the confidential Appendices A and B to this report.

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

The Executive noted the exempt financial information contained in the confidential Appendices A and B to Agenda Item 9 – Proposal for Additional Investment in West Berkshire’s Broadband.

RESOLVED that the information be noted.

Reason for the decision: n/a.

Other options considered: n/a.

(Paragraph 1 - information relating to an individual)

(CSP: 6)

Purpose:  To seek Executive approval to make a redundancy payment to a member of staff when the post is deleted on the grounds of efficiency on 30 September 2014.

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 26 June 2014, then it will be implemented.

(Paragraph 1 – information relating to an individual)

The Executive considered an exempt report (Agenda Item 13) requesting approval to make a redundancy payment to a member of staff when their post was deleted on the grounds of efficiency on 30 September 2014.

RESOLVED that the recommendations in the exempt report be agreed.

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

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